It doesn't look like they mentioned it in the article, but I seem to recall that Pluto is approaching a point in its orbit where a good part of its atmosphere will either vaporize or freeze out. So if we don't send a probe soon, we won't be able to see Pluto as it exists now for another century or so.
Sounds to me like the Iraqis, after the Gulf War, should have shown the inspectors their WMDs and let them watch as they were destroyed. In other words, they should have lived up to the terms of the cease-fire. They chose not to do so. Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either. Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.
Oh well, on the bright side, Saddam was able to get in another twelve years of torturing and murdering innocent men, women, and children. But all good things must come to an end.
Heck, because England and France were afraid to confront Hitler in the mid-30's as he violated the terms of the WWI Armistice, he was able to re-militarize to the point where he was able to cause the deaths of about 50 million people.
Hitler considered moving into Czeckloslovakia (sic?) to be the riskiest move he ever made. He knew that if England and France did something about it, he would have fallen from power since Germany wasn't built up to the point where they could have won a confrontation.
Do they not teach history in Europe? Geesh, all they really have to do is sit down and talk to grandpa.
You want payload? Bring back Saturn 5, put 120 tons into orbit (4 shuttle loads). One or two a year could replace the shuttle fleet. And you could continually improve their performace and lower their cost.
Wow, a shuttle bay for spacelab!! Cool, we can spend a billion dollars to take an observatory into space, use it for two weeks, then BRING IT BACK!! WTF? Put stuff up there AND LEAVE IT THERE!
They could actually get stuff done, and maybe Congress would trust them enough to work on reusable X-ships until they get one that actually is cheaper than big dumb boosters.
You know, there is a reason they don't launch commercial satellites with the shuttle. It's just too expensive.
I'm been a member of NSS for about 15 years, and it's getting to the point where getting rid of NASA is starting to look like the best way for the human race to colonize space.
It's been theorized that that is the reason why so many actors and actresses are liberal, because for them "luck, circumstance, and opportunity" play huge roles in getting them where they are, and deep down inside, they know it.
When I can record HDTV digitally, and archive it in a format that doesn't have DRM and isn't tied to a specific piece of hardware, then I'll consider HDTV. I don't even want a Tivo because you can't archive with it; I'll stick with VHS until I upgrade my PC to where it can be a good PVR. Picture quality isn't the most important factor, not by a long shot. How will HDTV improve "The Simpsons"?
So true. The things to worry about (with regard to aircraft) are:
1) Buying/leasing a jet, filling it with HE
2) Chartering a jet with a bunch of fake names, show up, kill the flight crew (before 9/11 you could get on charters without going through security; it wouldn't surprise me at all if that were still true)
Last I heard, Isreal has been attacked/invaded about 4 or 5 times in the last 60 years. Of course, that's not counting the suicide bombers or the Scuds during the Gulf War.
The horrible terms of the armistice that utterly humiliated and bankrupted Germany were insisted on by England and France. America's advice to be benevolent in victory was completely ingnored.
Most Americans felt it was dumb of us to get involved in WWI in the first place; why should we get involved if Europeans remain stupid?
Are Europeans fundamentally unable to learn from history?
Oookay. Yah. No WMDs in Iraq. Sure.
How about the following: Over the last 12 years Iraq has thoroughly compromised the inspection program and knows where the inspectors will be before the inspectors do. Why do you think U.S. intelligence is reluctant to give info to the inspectors? It won't do any good and will just get sources tortured and executed.
Who do you think set up the "Oil For Food" program so that Iraq had to sell their oil at well below market price "so that the oil companies would profit excessively"? Hint: Not the U.S. Who do you think gets the contracts for this below-market priced oil, in return for massive kickbacks to Hussein? Hint: Not U.S. companies.
They say it's all about the oil. They're right. But the ones who are making it about the oil are the French and the Russians, not the U.S. They'll be out some serious money if Saddam gets kicked out.
To be quite honest, since 9/11, I doubt that a lot of Americans would really mind Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Hopefully they *would* use a lot of nerve agents.
I don't think Harry Truman had to think too long about the decision, or that he loat any sleep over it. If he hadn't done it he would have been hung from the nearest lamppost by a mob when the people found out about the bomb.
Another thing to consider: The USSR had just declared war on Japan at the time; if the war had gone on longer it's likely all of Korea would have been occupied by the Soviets, and likely a few other areas in the far east also.
It's total war. To destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war, you kill the civilians or turn them into refugees. Japanese war industry was dispersed throughout the cities; a lot of production was home=jobbed. Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The two primary and two backup target cities (Nagasaki was a backup) were the only cities still standing; everything else was pretty much burned to the ground already (hint: don't get Curtis LeMay mad at you). They kept those cities intact so it could better demonstrate to the Japanese leaders (and to the Soviets) the capability of the bomb.
As for the morality of dropping the bombs, the Japanese were killing about 100,000 Chinese a month, mostly civilians. If the bombs ended the war a few months faster, it would be good. Not to mention the loss of Japanese and American lives in an invasion, and the fact that if those cities hadn't been nuked, they would have been destroyed by conventional bombs anyway.
Also, the Japanese military officers that ran the country were hoping to make things so bloody for the Americans that we would settle for a negotiated peace. Imagine, in the 50's, Japan rebuilding itself, run by the same psychopathic nutjobs, in a world where nuclear bombs exist.
Maybe someone should review "Downfall".
Didn't the Apollo moon rocks show that the moon was created 4 billion years ago when something the size of Mars hit the earth? The moon ended up with most of the rock (with perhaps a small metal core) and the earth ended up with most of the metal with just a wafer thin coating of rock.
The effoect of this is the earth is able to slowly and safely relieve internal stress through vulcanism, earthquakes, and plate techtonics while planets like Venus, with a crust much thicker than Earth, has outbursts every couple of hundred million years that cover half the planet in lava. If the moon hadn't been blasted off the earth, it would have been impossible for complex life to even begin to evolve.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't look like they mentioned it in the article, but I seem to recall that Pluto is approaching a point in its orbit where a good part of its atmosphere will either vaporize or freeze out. So if we don't send a probe soon, we won't be able to see Pluto as it exists now for another century or so.
Sounds to me like the Iraqis, after the Gulf War, should have shown the inspectors their WMDs and let them watch as they were destroyed. In other words, they should have lived up to the terms of the cease-fire. They chose not to do so. Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either. Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.
Oh well, on the bright side, Saddam was able to get in another twelve years of torturing and murdering innocent men, women, and children. But all good things must come to an end.
It's "it's", also :)
Heck, because England and France were afraid to confront Hitler in the mid-30's as he violated the terms of the WWI Armistice, he was able to re-militarize to the point where he was able to cause the deaths of about 50 million people.
Hitler considered moving into Czeckloslovakia (sic?) to be the riskiest move he ever made. He knew that if England and France did something about it, he would have fallen from power since Germany wasn't built up to the point where they could have won a confrontation.
Do they not teach history in Europe? Geesh, all they really have to do is sit down and talk to grandpa.
You want payload? Bring back Saturn 5, put 120 tons into orbit (4 shuttle loads). One or two a year could replace the shuttle fleet. And you could continually improve their performace and lower their cost.
Wow, a shuttle bay for spacelab!! Cool, we can spend a billion dollars to take an observatory into space, use it for two weeks, then BRING IT BACK!! WTF? Put stuff up there AND LEAVE IT THERE!
They could actually get stuff done, and maybe Congress would trust them enough to work on reusable X-ships until they get one that actually is cheaper than big dumb boosters.
You know, there is a reason they don't launch commercial satellites with the shuttle. It's just too expensive.
I'm been a member of NSS for about 15 years, and it's getting to the point where getting rid of NASA is starting to look like the best way for the human race to colonize space.
It's been theorized that that is the reason why so many actors and actresses are liberal, because for them "luck, circumstance, and opportunity" play huge roles in getting them where they are, and deep down inside, they know it.
When I can record HDTV digitally, and archive it in a format that doesn't have DRM and isn't tied to a specific piece of hardware, then I'll consider HDTV. I don't even want a Tivo because you can't archive with it; I'll stick with VHS until I upgrade my PC to where it can be a good PVR. Picture quality isn't the most important factor, not by a long shot. How will HDTV improve "The Simpsons"?
So true. The things to worry about (with regard to aircraft) are:
1) Buying/leasing a jet, filling it with HE
2) Chartering a jet with a bunch of fake names, show up, kill the flight crew (before 9/11 you could get on charters without going through security; it wouldn't surprise me at all if that were still true)
Last I heard, Isreal has been attacked/invaded about 4 or 5 times in the last 60 years. Of course, that's not counting the suicide bombers or the Scuds during the Gulf War.
The horrible terms of the armistice that utterly humiliated and bankrupted Germany were insisted on by England and France. America's advice to be benevolent in victory was completely ingnored.
Most Americans felt it was dumb of us to get involved in WWI in the first place; why should we get involved if Europeans remain stupid?
Are Europeans fundamentally unable to learn from history?
Oookay. Yah. No WMDs in Iraq. Sure. How about the following: Over the last 12 years Iraq has thoroughly compromised the inspection program and knows where the inspectors will be before the inspectors do. Why do you think U.S. intelligence is reluctant to give info to the inspectors? It won't do any good and will just get sources tortured and executed. Who do you think set up the "Oil For Food" program so that Iraq had to sell their oil at well below market price "so that the oil companies would profit excessively"? Hint: Not the U.S. Who do you think gets the contracts for this below-market priced oil, in return for massive kickbacks to Hussein? Hint: Not U.S. companies. They say it's all about the oil. They're right. But the ones who are making it about the oil are the French and the Russians, not the U.S. They'll be out some serious money if Saddam gets kicked out. To be quite honest, since 9/11, I doubt that a lot of Americans would really mind Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Hopefully they *would* use a lot of nerve agents.
Actually, I've read that the Germans spent more money and resources on their V-1 and V-2 programs than America spent on the Manhattan project.
I don't think Harry Truman had to think too long about the decision, or that he loat any sleep over it. If he hadn't done it he would have been hung from the nearest lamppost by a mob when the people found out about the bomb.
Another thing to consider: The USSR had just declared war on Japan at the time; if the war had gone on longer it's likely all of Korea would have been occupied by the Soviets, and likely a few other areas in the far east also.
It's total war. To destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war, you kill the civilians or turn them into refugees. Japanese war industry was dispersed throughout the cities; a lot of production was home=jobbed. Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The two primary and two backup target cities (Nagasaki was a backup) were the only cities still standing; everything else was pretty much burned to the ground already (hint: don't get Curtis LeMay mad at you). They kept those cities intact so it could better demonstrate to the Japanese leaders (and to the Soviets) the capability of the bomb. As for the morality of dropping the bombs, the Japanese were killing about 100,000 Chinese a month, mostly civilians. If the bombs ended the war a few months faster, it would be good. Not to mention the loss of Japanese and American lives in an invasion, and the fact that if those cities hadn't been nuked, they would have been destroyed by conventional bombs anyway. Also, the Japanese military officers that ran the country were hoping to make things so bloody for the Americans that we would settle for a negotiated peace. Imagine, in the 50's, Japan rebuilding itself, run by the same psychopathic nutjobs, in a world where nuclear bombs exist. Maybe someone should review "Downfall".
Didn't the Apollo moon rocks show that the moon was created 4 billion years ago when something the size of Mars hit the earth? The moon ended up with most of the rock (with perhaps a small metal core) and the earth ended up with most of the metal with just a wafer thin coating of rock. The effoect of this is the earth is able to slowly and safely relieve internal stress through vulcanism, earthquakes, and plate techtonics while planets like Venus, with a crust much thicker than Earth, has outbursts every couple of hundred million years that cover half the planet in lava. If the moon hadn't been blasted off the earth, it would have been impossible for complex life to even begin to evolve.