I'd like to point out that it is not just the pols and corporations that are learning these lessons... The media as well has and will continue to be 'bit' by this. While they once held a monolpoly on information, recent doctored photos scandals (Lebanon), CBS (forged?) documents, etc.. have all placed added scrutiny to the media's analysis, sources and methods.
Well, here is my take - the Democrats are going to contiue to push this issue in the spotlight... it is in their advantage to do so... In the same way the military preps a target with airstrikes before a ground assault, the Dems are preparing the population for their legal challenges if they don't win back the house and senate. The challenges don't even have to be successful, if they cause doubt, they win (in terms of converting people against the "establishment").
So it has come to this... 450+ comments about a guy who posted his version of events in a forum. I can remeber a day when there would be at least a critical discussion as to the facts of a story - but in this case we are just swallowing it whole. Personally, I will wait to pass judgement until the story is presented by someone with a less-sharp axe to grind. As for the rest of you - I think it is sad that the emotion evoked by anything anti-US completely inhibits your ability to think rationally. That is something we used to accuse the other side of... remember - back when we used to claim the logical high ground?
That said, here is how the replies to this post will go... "given the actions of this government... there is no reason to believe this story is false... blah blah"
My response: you've demonstrated that your beliefs supercede any desire for a logical discourse. Look to your left and right - say hi to the new-world creationists.
I think there is a mistake... "Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages" and "Cranks, Nuts and Screwballs" are really part of the same title: "Cranks, Nuts and Screwballs: Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages"
I'll pile on... when arm-chair quarterbacking history, people repeatedly point out "there is only one county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons... twice... on civilians.
Adding to the reasons you have given, consider that the US had very valid concerns that Japan may be nearing completion of its own nuclear weapon. Immediately before Germany's fall, in May of 1945, U-234 (almost an ironic name) was captured by US forces. Its mission had been to transfer to Japan enough Uranium for two nuclear weapons, two fully disassembled ME-262's, full documentation of Nazi Germany's nuclear efforts to date, centrifuge technology, a V-2 rocket expert, etc.. While unknown at the time, the Japanese Navy may have even had a sneak attack capability against the mainland US in the form of the I-400 submarine aircraft carriers.
U-234 surrendered to US forces after the Germany's fall - but the US had to face the very real possibility that there had been other submarines that may not have surrendered. I guess my point is that you can't divorce the reality of the situation from the perception of the decision makers at the time. With some risk of attracting flames, some believe the same applies to the run-up to the Iraq war.
I find it intersting that you have no doubt that the BA-330 will come out on time, on budget and on performance but you have little faith in CEV's schedule. As for COTS, there are only two funded Space Act Agreements (not several) although "several" of the finalists (if you include the non-selects) did have 6 person capacity. I'll be surprised if they CDR version actually accomodates as many. Yes, the COTS proposals are offering significant cost savings - that's precisely why NASA created the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office - NASA wants out of the space transportation buisness to focus on Exploration. By the way, COTS Capability D (crew transport) is no funded in the awards that were just announced - that funding will not be initiated until after a company successfully demonstrates Capability C (Press cargo to and from orbit). COTS is about moving cargo (and eventually people) to and from LEO, CEV is an Exploration vehicle so comparing costs is really comparing apples to oranges.
As for the politics - I did not turn this into a political post - in your GP post, you seemed to be implying that the next president would turn CEV into more of a moon-going vehicle by funding the Ares V (at least that's how I read it) - implying that Bush isn't serious about exploration. I merely pointed out that a) CEV is part of the lunar architecture and b) Bush is driving our return to the moon and c) Bush's commitments to NASA have far outweighed those of his predecessor.
If you want to bring up Clinton, well, Clinton's priority was not NASA. It was the economy, the budget, and Bin Ladin.
I don't want to turn this into a politics discussion - let's just say I disagree that these were priorities of Clinton at all.
As for my relation to NASA, let's just say that I respect and appreciate your contribution to the space program and that I choose to keep my position within NASA to myself.
Once Bush is gone, the next president will almost certainly change the direction from the ares I/V and CEV, to Ares V and a moon lander. The reason is that we will have cheap access for small items and the BA-330. All that will be needed is a large capacity rocket and a lander to create the bases.
You do realize that the entire Constellation effort is for moon landings by 2020 and is driven by a Bush mandate right? You seem to be implying that the Ares I and CEV are somehow not a part of the lunar architecture. That's about the most ignorant thing I have heard in a while. I am sure you just couldn't resist a chance to take a swipe at Bush - if you did some research you would see that Bush is actually rebuilding NASA after Clinton neglected throughout his presidency. Please read up on NASA's strategic plan, and program implementation before posting further on the subject.
I'll give you an 82% (-3% for not mentioning mentioning Karl Rove and -10% for not mentioning "controlled demolition" and another -5% for not mentioning Gitmo). Please go back and study the offical Democratic talking points.
-H. Dean
Before someone asks... The reason NASA chose to develop a new vehicle instead od using an EELV was because it was deemed practically impossible to modify the exisiting designs to accomodate humans. Specifically, these vehicles fly an extreme loft trajectory. In the event of an abort... the re-entry loads would likely not be survivable. By comparison, human-rated vehicle fly much 'flatter' trajectories.
Apple makes FairPlay work on on Windows.
I'm sure MS is free to make Play's For Sure work on OSX
Sort of... Apple makes FairPlay work with windows - if you use iTunes. I actually returned my iPod primarily because it only worked with iTunes and would not synch with WMP without external (not-free) plug-ins. (I know... I am in a minority but I prefer WMP over iTunes).
Microsoft may be using their position to deliberately push Apple into a crisis.
What position would that be? They hold precisely zero percent of the mp3 player market share. Unless you are implying they are going to use their marketshare in OS to bolster their product - which is a pretty specious arguement if you ask me given that iTunes/iPods work great with windows. Now, if MS starts messing with things that give iTunes/Windows integration issues -then you have a pretty solid case. Of course that raises an interesting point... how well does Apple support Play's For Sure devices on its platforms? I'd wager less well than MS supports Apple products...
Some back of envelope calculations: Assuming $3/gal you are using 100 gallons a month and assuming that you get 25 mpg and that 90% of your driving is commuting to and from work, you must have a daily commute of about 112 miles (56 miles each way). This costs you $300. My question for you is you have clearly chosen to work far from your place of residence. This was probably either to a) get a better paying job -or- b) live somewhere more affordable. Are you making/saving more with this arrangement than if you lived closer to your job and didn't spend the $300?
The whole gas price thing reminds me of the anti-ATM fee craze in 2000. Everyone was in hysterics (at least in Calif) that ATM fees were as much as *gasp* $3. People were literally freaking out and wanting legislation to control the price of ATM fees (which probably amounted to what - less than $30/month) while at the same time paying 300-400x as much on taxes. If you are going to be angry with where your money is going - look at your own habits and at least get angry about the things that you can not influence directly (i.e. taxes).
Sorry, but your "debunking" was counter-debunked, on Salon as well. Turns out Manjoo was just using the right-wing's classic tricks of distraction and red herrings.
Ok...maybe I should have said "credibly debunked" and it would have cleared things up. Let's compare:
My debunking was based on the polling analysis performed by the very company that conducted the polls.
Your "debunking" is done by Steven Freeman, who has a book out titled "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count". I am sure he isn't biased.
Freeman contradicts the poll company's report and claims that polling is actually very accurate (while the polling company themselves admit that historicy they tend to favor the Dems from 2-6%. Then there is this garbage about 1:660,000 chance of the vote swining. Maybe I'll check-out his book once it hits the library because I would love to see the statistics behind this. I am going to wager that he assumes that polls are accurate to begin with - and then assumes that the three state results are independent events (let me give you a hint, neither are). As far as poll results being accurate, the NHP report shows that for the four elections prior to 2004, the average polling error was 3% (biased Dem) and the 1992 election was biased by 5%!. Given that history, do you really believe that a 6.5% polling error is a 1:660,000 chance? Keep in mind that polling makes use of extensive parametric modelling based on previous election results. If there is a significant change in the voting demographic or in political alignments, these will compond the errors! Pretty much every expert believes that the electorate did go through such a huge shift this decade, due to both heavy immigration and 9-11.
Note also that he makes a big deal that these discrepanices occurred in OH, FL, and Penn (the swing states). The T-scores for the poll errors in those states were 2.2, 2.4 and 3.2. I find it interesting that he fails to mention that seven other states had T-scores for the error that were greater than Florida's 2.4. They are: Conn, Delaware, NY, Minn, New Hamp, South Carol and Vermont. Why did he leave these out of the vast right-wing conspiracy (all but SC went for Kerry btw).
Again, it all boils down to this - the conspiracy theorists entire argument rests on the discrepancy between the polls and the actual vote results. The polling company themselves have admitted they screwed up and can account for the errors. (cue accusations that they are part of the VRWC).
Correct, and the report discusses this a bit. I was actually disappointed with one aspect of the report - they spent so much time correllating so many variables (age of pollster, location of pollster, educational background of pollster). Yet they failed to get what might have been the most interesting factor - the political leaning of the pollster. Just as the pollsters may have been more or less approachable based on the way they looked/dressed, they themselves may have subconsciously been "selecting" their targets.
The right-wing believed Clinton would do the same thing in the late 1990's. Of course, it didn't happen. And it's about as likely to happen this time.
I'm sorry... I must have missed this. Can you site a qoute from any Republican official that they thought Clinton stole an election ? Seriously. They may not have liked him,... and they may have made accuasation of voter irregularities - but there is a huge difference between claiming that some minor instances of voter fraud and that someone "stole the election".
Not to mention the fact that the story has been pretty much debunked already. The number one claim of "proof" that the election was stolen was the dicrepancy between the exit polls and the final polls. The company that did the exit polling did their own investigation (as seen in their 77-page report) and found that
They screwed up.
The early numbers released were inaccurate due to bad gender participation weighting factors. (the end-of-day results were actually much closer to the actuals than most people realize)
There was no difference in exit poll errors between touch screen and other methods."Some have suggested that the exit poll data could be used as evidence of voter fraud in
the 2004 Election by showing error rates were higher in precincts with touch screen and
optical scan voting equipment. Our evaluation does not support this hypothesis. In our
exit poll sample overall, precincts with touch screen and optical scan voting have
essentially the same error rates as those using punch card systems. In the larger urban
areas these systems had lower WPEs than punch card precincts."
Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll
strong correllation between the age of the poll volunteer and the pollee's willingness to participate
I haven't given any credence to the notion that the election was stolen since I read this
piece in the NYtimes. It follows Dem operatives in Ohio on election day in 2004. It documents their intial happiness and as they spend the day trying to get the vote out (for the Dems) and increasing nervousness as they see more and more indications
that the Republicans simply had a stronger get-out-the-vote campaign. (Read it all - whatever your political leanings, it is very educational as to the lengths the parties will go to try to swing the vote up to the last second).
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never posted anything representing a remotely conservative viewpoint.
I'd like to point out that it is not just the pols and corporations that are learning these lessons... The media as well has and will continue to be 'bit' by this. While they once held a monolpoly on information, recent doctored photos scandals (Lebanon), CBS (forged?) documents, etc.. have all placed added scrutiny to the media's analysis, sources and methods.
You mean like archon?
Right... and the progressives floates that comment the last two elections and it didn't happen then either... nice try.
Very close... however, all good engineers with program management experience know that actual cost = estimated cost * pi.
That said, here is how the replies to this post will go... "given the actions of this government... there is no reason to believe this story is false ... blah blah"
My response: you've demonstrated that your beliefs supercede any desire for a logical discourse. Look to your left and right - say hi to the new-world creationists.
I think there is a mistake... "Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages" and "Cranks, Nuts and Screwballs" are really part of the same title: "Cranks, Nuts and Screwballs: Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages"
Adding to the reasons you have given, consider that the US had very valid concerns that Japan may be nearing completion of its own nuclear weapon . Immediately before Germany's fall, in May of 1945, U-234 (almost an ironic name) was captured by US forces. Its mission had been to transfer to Japan enough Uranium for two nuclear weapons, two fully disassembled ME-262's, full documentation of Nazi Germany's nuclear efforts to date, centrifuge technology, a V-2 rocket expert, etc.. While unknown at the time, the Japanese Navy may have even had a sneak attack capability against the mainland US in the form of the I-400 submarine aircraft carriers.
U-234 surrendered to US forces after the Germany's fall - but the US had to face the very real possibility that there had been other submarines that may not have surrendered. I guess my point is that you can't divorce the reality of the situation from the perception of the decision makers at the time. With some risk of attracting flames, some believe the same applies to the run-up to the Iraq war.
As for the politics - I did not turn this into a political post - in your GP post, you seemed to be implying that the next president would turn CEV into more of a moon-going vehicle by funding the Ares V (at least that's how I read it) - implying that Bush isn't serious about exploration. I merely pointed out that a) CEV is part of the lunar architecture and b) Bush is driving our return to the moon and c) Bush's commitments to NASA have far outweighed those of his predecessor.
If you want to bring up Clinton, well, Clinton's priority was not NASA. It was the economy, the budget, and Bin Ladin.
I don't want to turn this into a politics discussion - let's just say I disagree that these were priorities of Clinton at all.
As for my relation to NASA, let's just say that I respect and appreciate your contribution to the space program and that I choose to keep my position within NASA to myself.
I'm sorry...you must have meant to be responding to someone else's post because your ramblings have nothing to do with the facts in my original post.
You do realize that the entire Constellation effort is for moon landings by 2020 and is driven by a Bush mandate right? You seem to be implying that the Ares I and CEV are somehow not a part of the lunar architecture. That's about the most ignorant thing I have heard in a while. I am sure you just couldn't resist a chance to take a swipe at Bush - if you did some research you would see that Bush is actually rebuilding NASA after Clinton neglected throughout his presidency. Please read up on NASA's strategic plan, and program implementation before posting further on the subject.
I'll give you an 82% (-3% for not mentioning mentioning Karl Rove and -10% for not mentioning "controlled demolition" and another -5% for not mentioning Gitmo). Please go back and study the offical Democratic talking points. -H. Dean
and yes...IAARS.
Sort of... Apple makes FairPlay work with windows - if you use iTunes. I actually returned my iPod primarily because it only worked with iTunes and would not synch with WMP without external (not-free) plug-ins. (I know... I am in a minority but I prefer WMP over iTunes).
What position would that be? They hold precisely zero percent of the mp3 player market share. Unless you are implying they are going to use their marketshare in OS to bolster their product - which is a pretty specious arguement if you ask me given that iTunes/iPods work great with windows. Now, if MS starts messing with things that give iTunes/Windows integration issues -then you have a pretty solid case. Of course that raises an interesting point... how well does Apple support Play's For Sure devices on its platforms? I'd wager less well than MS supports Apple products...
The whole gas price thing reminds me of the anti-ATM fee craze in 2000. Everyone was in hysterics (at least in Calif) that ATM fees were as much as *gasp* $3. People were literally freaking out and wanting legislation to control the price of ATM fees (which probably amounted to what - less than $30/month) while at the same time paying 300-400x as much on taxes. If you are going to be angry with where your money is going - look at your own habits and at least get angry about the things that you can not influence directly (i.e. taxes).
Ok...maybe I should have said "credibly debunked" and it would have cleared things up. Let's compare:
- My debunking was based on the polling analysis performed by the very company that conducted the polls.
- Your "debunking" is done by Steven Freeman, who has a book out titled "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count". I am sure he isn't biased.
Freeman contradicts the poll company's report and claims that polling is actually very accurate (while the polling company themselves admit that historicy they tend to favor the Dems from 2-6%. Then there is this garbage about 1:660,000 chance of the vote swining. Maybe I'll check-out his book once it hits the library because I would love to see the statistics behind this. I am going to wager that he assumes that polls are accurate to begin with - and then assumes that the three state results are independent events (let me give you a hint, neither are). As far as poll results being accurate, the NHP report shows that for the four elections prior to 2004, the average polling error was 3% (biased Dem) and the 1992 election was biased by 5%!. Given that history, do you really believe that a 6.5% polling error is a 1:660,000 chance? Keep in mind that polling makes use of extensive parametric modelling based on previous election results. If there is a significant change in the voting demographic or in political alignments, these will compond the errors! Pretty much every expert believes that the electorate did go through such a huge shift this decade, due to both heavy immigration and 9-11.Note also that he makes a big deal that these discrepanices occurred in OH, FL, and Penn (the swing states). The T-scores for the poll errors in those states were 2.2, 2.4 and 3.2. I find it interesting that he fails to mention that seven other states had T-scores for the error that were greater than Florida's 2.4. They are: Conn, Delaware, NY, Minn, New Hamp, South Carol and Vermont. Why did he leave these out of the vast right-wing conspiracy (all but SC went for Kerry btw).
Again, it all boils down to this - the conspiracy theorists entire argument rests on the discrepancy between the polls and the actual vote results. The polling company themselves have admitted they screwed up and can account for the errors. (cue accusations that they are part of the VRWC).
Correct, and the report discusses this a bit. I was actually disappointed with one aspect of the report - they spent so much time correllating so many variables (age of pollster, location of pollster, educational background of pollster). Yet they failed to get what might have been the most interesting factor - the political leaning of the pollster. Just as the pollsters may have been more or less approachable based on the way they looked/dressed, they themselves may have subconsciously been "selecting" their targets.
ahh...my bust.. i misundertood
I'm sorry... I must have missed this. Can you site a qoute from any Republican official that they thought Clinton stole an election ? Seriously. They may not have liked him,... and they may have made accuasation of voter irregularities - but there is a huge difference between claiming that some minor instances of voter fraud and that someone "stole the election".
- They screwed up.
- The early numbers released were inaccurate due to bad gender participation weighting factors. (the end-of-day results were actually much closer to the actuals than most people realize)
- There was no difference in exit poll errors between touch screen and other methods."Some have suggested that the exit poll data could be used as evidence of voter fraud in
the 2004 Election by showing error rates were higher in precincts with touch screen and
optical scan voting equipment. Our evaluation does not support this hypothesis. In our
exit poll sample overall, precincts with touch screen and optical scan voting have
essentially the same error rates as those using punch card systems. In the larger urban
areas these systems had lower WPEs than punch card precincts."
- Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll
- strong correllation between the age of the poll volunteer and the pollee's willingness to participate
I haven't given any credence to the notion that the election was stolen since I read this piece in the NYtimes. It follows Dem operatives in Ohio on election day in 2004. It documents their intial happiness and as they spend the day trying to get the vote out (for the Dems) and increasing nervousness as they see more and more indications that the Republicans simply had a stronger get-out-the-vote campaign. (Read it all - whatever your political leanings, it is very educational as to the lengths the parties will go to try to swing the vote up to the last second).Obligatory Grandpa Simpons quote: "The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"
Sorry... the words "Episode IV" were not anywhere in the original release. The posts you are referring to are wrong. See here, here, and here.