A clanking replicator is an artificial self-replicating system that relies on conventional large-scale technology and automation. The term evolved to distinguish such systems from the microscopic "assemblers" that nanotechnology may make possible....
Such a machine violates no physical laws, and we already possess the basic technologies necessary for some of the more detailed proposed designs.
A self-replicating machine would need to have the capacity to gather energy and raw materials, process the raw materials into finished components, and then assemble them into a copy of itself. It is unlikely that this would all be contained within a single monolithic structure, but would rather be a group of cooperating machines or an automated factory that is capable of manufacturing all of the machines that make it up. The factory could produce mining robots to collect raw materials, construction robots to put new machines together, and repair robots to maintain itself against wear and tear, all without human intervention or direction. The advantage of such a system lies in its ability to expand its own capacity rapidly and without additional human effort; in essence, the initial investment required to construct the first clanking replicator would have an arbitrarily large payoff with no additional cost.
On a completely different note, does anyone else remember the Slylandro probes from Star Control 2?
and all the research that needs to be done to make living in space actually possible is going to happen where?
Bigelow Aerospace seems to be making a good bit of progress in that arena. Granted, a lot of their technology came from the NASA-funded Transhab project.
One goal involves understanding Earth's biosphere more thoroughly. The other goal involves discovering a completely new biosphere, likely to be radically different from our own. Both are important, and I'm not sure why you find it strange that some people would happen to be more interested in one than the other.
Quote: Mice that keep their brains and bodies busy in an "enriched" environment of chew toys, running wheels, and tunnels have lower levels of the peptides and brain plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease compared to mice raised in more sparse conditions, according to a new study in the 11 March issue of the journal Cell.
Levels of b-amyloid peptides, which clump together to form the brain "tangles" or plaques that are toxic to nerve cells in Alzheimer's disease, were significantly lower in the enriched mice, say Sangram Sisodia, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues. The enriched mice may have been better equipped than their less-stimulated counterparts to sweep these peptides out of the brain, according to the researchers' analysis of gene and enzyme expression in the animals.
"This goes back to the old idea of use it or lose it, that using your brain keeps it more active," Sisodia says. "It's more common sense than anything, but what we didn't previously appreciate is that it might affect the pathology that is characteristic of Alzheimer's disease."...
The researchers also found intriguing clues that an active body, as well as an active brain, might be a key factor in reaping the benefits of an enriched environment. The most physically active of the mice in the elaborately furnished cages had the most dramatic reductions in amyloid peptides and deposits. At least among this small group of mouse workout devotees, "exercise appears to play a significant role in modulating amyloid deposition," Sisodia and colleagues write.
The researchers caution, however, that it will take more experiments with larger numbers of animals to determine exactly how enriched environments benefit mice, whether through increased physical activity, a boost in visual, social, and spatial stimuli that awaken the brain, or some combination of all of these factors.
Sisodia says exercise, along with any kind of mental activity from reading to doing the crossword puzzle, are probably the equivalent of chew toys and running wheels for humans. "It's all very important in keeping the mind active and potentially staving off effects of old age."
While I get a kick out of most of these missions, I'm *really* waiting for the next Titan mission. I want to see a nuclear powered helicopter or cryogenic-temperature blimp (two proposals thusfar) patrolling around Titan; it'd be able to visit pretty much the entire moon. Huygens definitely was a "pose 5 new questions for every one it answered" mission. And if anything, Titan now looks even more like Primordial-Earth-In-Deep-Freeze than ever before.::digs up one of his old posts to sci.space.tech::
There were some concept studies done of an "Aerover" blimp for Titan exploration a few years back. I suspect we'll soon seen those ideas thrown around again.
This reminds me of the DepthX submarine which was described in a recent issue of Wired. The probe would drop down, melt through the ice, and then autonomously search for hydrothermal activity on the sea floor.
The group working on it is currently putting together a version to explore and search for life in a rather hostile water-filled cave in Mexico. They've got a progress report here, with many details and pictures.
Yeah, sorry, sorry. When I used the term "animation" in the submission, I was mostly referring to the fact that it was an animated GIF, albeit a 2-frame one. In retrospect, something like "slideshow" may have been a better choice of term.
The worst part is that the site practices heavy censorship to reinforce this racism.
Hmm.. I guess I wasn't previously aware that FR deletes posts. Most of my experience on the site is with arguing in the evolution vs. creation debates. Despite being pretty pro-evolution, I've never had a comment deleted -- I've even had creationists commend my arguments. I guess it's possible that things may be different when it comes to "racism," though.
What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?
Supply convoys. Do you remember that story from last year where troops refused to go on a supply mission because it was too dangerous? From DARPA's 2004 FAQ:
Q: How will autonomous ground vehicle technology benefit the military?
A: The military is looking toward a future in which manned and unmanned systems work together on the ground and in the air to provide enhanced capabilities for U.S. forces. For an example of the utility of unmanned ground systems, consider Operation Iraqi Freedom. The combat troops moved quickly toward Baghdad, and were followed by supplies and materiel. Protecting the supply lines was critical. In the future, unmanned systems may be able to conduct resupply missions without using humans as drivers, and without requiring additional troops for protection.
We are currently seeking additional team members with the following skills and/or resources:
* Sensor integration
* DSP programming
* Gumstix hardware/programming
* Autonomy/AI - CYC/DAML or other ontology-based programming experience
* Game engine programming (for robotic simulation)
* Desert racing/driving experience
* Hobby robotics competitions (e.g. Robo-Magellan, Robotica, Robot Wars)
They've got quite a nice vehicle, and so far have things at the "drive by wire" stage.
Not sure what's with the blink tags on their web site, though.
Is there something I'm missing which would make putting coral links into a story a bad idea? I assumed it would help with keeping the links from getting slashdotted.
"So, recognizing that others may differ, for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible."
"What the U.S. gains from a robust, focused program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along with the inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system. Is this valuable? The answer must depend on one's worldview, I suppose. But consider a map of the world today, and notice the range of nations in which English is spoken as a primary language, and in which variations on British systems of justice, politics, culture, and economics thrive today. Was the centuries-long development of the British Empire, based upon Britain's primacy in the maritime arts, a misguided use of resources? I believe not.... Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? I think so, and I think our descendants will consider it to have been worth twenty cents per day."
"The necessary requirements of human expansion into the solar system cannot be met without a greatly increased program of unmanned scientific exploration. This can only be seen as a "win-win" for all those involved in any aspect of space exploration. In the end, it comes down to letting robots and humans each do what they do best."
"For interplanetary flight, something more than chemical propulsion is clearly needed for other than return to the moon or, possibly, the first expeditions to Mars. Nuclear propulsion makes the most sense to me; several options are available, including both nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric concepts. We once had an operating, ground-tested (though not flight-tested) nuclear-thermal upper stage intended for use on the Saturn V. The program was cancelled thirty years ago, when it became clear that a Mars mission was not in the nation's immediate future. Numerous nuclear fusion concepts potentially applicable to space propulsion exist, most notably those involving electrostatic confinement of the nuclear core, but none of these is receiving more than token funding. There also exist a number of promising approaches to electric propulsion, notably the Vasimir engine concept. In the long run, some form of nuclear-electric propulsion is likely to offer the best combination of efficiency and packaging capability for interplanetary flight."
"I have alluded above to some of the technical hurdles that we face in a commitment to a permanent program of human space exploration. Broadly, the tools necessary for this enterprise include:
* Heavy-lift launch capability, in the 100 metric ton to LEO class or greater.
* Reliable, efficient, and cost effective transportation to LEO for moderate size payloads.
* Compact space qualified nuclear power systems.
* Nuclear and nuclear-electric upper stage vehicles for application to interplanetary flight.
* Space and planetary surface habitat and human suit technology.
* Technology and systems for utilizing the in situ resources of the moon, Mars, and asteroids.
* Reliable and routine Earth-to-LEO crew transfer systems."
"I will repeat only briefly my remarks above concerning ISS; we should do what is necessary to bring the program to an orderly completion while respecting our international partnership agreements, obtaining where possible as much scientific value as we can from the enterprise while accommodating ourselves to the fact that such value is inevitably limited."
In congressional testimony he gave last year, Michael Griffin outlined a number of questions which he felt Congress and NASA need to ask. This list was pretty interesting, because many of them are the sorts of things which NASA is notorious for ignoring. It's refreshing to know that these questions are at least on the radar of NASA's new head:
(bolding mine)
# Why does spaceflight - human or robotic - cost so much more than other comparably complex human activities, and what can be done to remedy the situation?
# Is a serious program of human space exploration sustainable, given the "cost of doing business" presently associated with the enterprise?
# What incentives can be offered to proven and well-established aerospace contractors to devise innovative and cost-effective, yet safe and reliable, approaches to building a new human spaceflight infrastructure?
# Where and how does NASA intend to engage the entrepreneurial high-tech culture which has made our nation the envy of so many others, in so many areas other than aerospace? What can we do to bring the engine of capitalism to spaceflight?
# What is the proper role of prizes, or of pay-for-performance contracts, in stimulating and encouraging the high-tech community to devote its attention to aerospace?
# Can or should the Congress establish prizes for specific accomplishments in spaceflight, independently of NASA?
# What is NASA's proper role in the development of new space systems, beyond setting requirements to be met through competition in industry?
# What is NASA's proper role, as an agency of the U.S. government, in the conduct of future spaceflight operations?
# If the exploration of new worlds requires technologies and skills beyond those presently available within NASA - and it clearly does - how are the skills of other agencies and laboratories to be used effectively in the service of the larger mission? How will the overall effort be directed?
# Given that we as a nation will spend a certain amount each year on civil space activities, what would Americans prefer to see this money used for? What vision for space exploration excites people enough to cause them to believe that the money they spend on it is well spent? Can a reasonable consensus even be found? How do we know?
# Is the United States interested in leading an international program of space exploration? Which nations might be competitors, and which might be partners? How and in what role do we view our potential partners in the enterprise? What do our potential partners think about this? How do we know?
In synopsis, Griffin has been willing eschew political expediency and stand on principle.
Yeah, I thought this quote from NASA Watch was particularly telling:
Editor's personal note: In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.
By the way, just how many times this week has the Free Republic called for ethnic cleansing of various parts of the world?
Probably about as often as slashdot has called for Redmond to be nuked. Free Republic is a discussion site, and people post wacky stuff on there. Like slashdot, every once in a while you also see a post which doesn't suck.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm... that makes sense. ::makes mental note for future submissions::
Oh darn... the editors cut out my link to the Wikipedia article on von Neumann's Universal Constructor (i.e. clanking replicator). Here it is:
...
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Constructor
From the article:
A clanking replicator is an artificial self-replicating system that relies on conventional large-scale technology and automation. The term evolved to distinguish such systems from the microscopic "assemblers" that nanotechnology may make possible.
Such a machine violates no physical laws, and we already possess the basic technologies necessary for some of the more detailed proposed designs.
A self-replicating machine would need to have the capacity to gather energy and raw materials, process the raw materials into finished components, and then assemble them into a copy of itself. It is unlikely that this would all be contained within a single monolithic structure, but would rather be a group of cooperating machines or an automated factory that is capable of manufacturing all of the machines that make it up. The factory could produce mining robots to collect raw materials, construction robots to put new machines together, and repair robots to maintain itself against wear and tear, all without human intervention or direction. The advantage of such a system lies in its ability to expand its own capacity rapidly and without additional human effort; in essence, the initial investment required to construct the first clanking replicator would have an arbitrarily large payoff with no additional cost.
On a completely different note, does anyone else remember the Slylandro probes from Star Control 2?
and all the research that needs to be done to make living in space actually possible is going to happen where?
Bigelow Aerospace seems to be making a good bit of progress in that arena. Granted, a lot of their technology came from the NASA-funded Transhab project.
One goal involves understanding Earth's biosphere more thoroughly. The other goal involves discovering a completely new biosphere, likely to be radically different from our own. Both are important, and I'm not sure why you find it strange that some people would happen to be more interested in one than the other.
Vectran
There was actually an article on this a few days ago.
...
Original research paper in Cell: Environmental Enrichment Reduces Alpha-Beta Levels and Amyloid Deposition in Transgenic Mice
Summary in Cell: Exercise Your Amyloid
Article in Medical News Today
Quote: Mice that keep their brains and bodies busy in an "enriched" environment of chew toys, running wheels, and tunnels have lower levels of the peptides and brain plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease compared to mice raised in more sparse conditions, according to a new study in the 11 March issue of the journal Cell.
Levels of b-amyloid peptides, which clump together to form the brain "tangles" or plaques that are toxic to nerve cells in Alzheimer's disease, were significantly lower in the enriched mice, say Sangram Sisodia, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues. The enriched mice may have been better equipped than their less-stimulated counterparts to sweep these peptides out of the brain, according to the researchers' analysis of gene and enzyme expression in the animals.
"This goes back to the old idea of use it or lose it, that using your brain keeps it more active," Sisodia says. "It's more common sense than anything, but what we didn't previously appreciate is that it might affect the pathology that is characteristic of Alzheimer's disease."
The researchers also found intriguing clues that an active body, as well as an active brain, might be a key factor in reaping the benefits of an enriched environment. The most physically active of the mice in the elaborately furnished cages had the most dramatic reductions in amyloid peptides and deposits. At least among this small group of mouse workout devotees, "exercise appears to play a significant role in modulating amyloid deposition," Sisodia and colleagues write.
The researchers caution, however, that it will take more experiments with larger numbers of animals to determine exactly how enriched environments benefit mice, whether through increased physical activity, a boost in visual, social, and spatial stimuli that awaken the brain, or some combination of all of these factors.
Sisodia says exercise, along with any kind of mental activity from reading to doing the crossword puzzle, are probably the equivalent of chew toys and running wheels for humans. "It's all very important in keeping the mind active and potentially staving off effects of old age."
Ever pop a hole in a multi-layered material that's stronger than kevlar?
I'd consider that, but as it is the number of links I put in a story is already near the upper bound of what most people will tolerate.
While I get a kick out of most of these missions, I'm *really* waiting for the next Titan mission. I want to see a nuclear powered helicopter or cryogenic-temperature blimp (two proposals thusfar) patrolling around Titan; it'd be able to visit pretty much the entire moon. Huygens definitely was a "pose 5 new questions for every one it answered" mission. And if anything, Titan now looks even more like Primordial-Earth-In-Deep-Freeze than ever before. ::digs up one of his old posts to sci.space.tech::
= 499 l / titan_blimp_020212.html
There were some concept studies done of an "Aerover" blimp for Titan exploration a few years back. I suspect we'll soon seen those ideas thrown around again.
Post-Cassini Exploration of Titan: Science Rationale and Mission Concepts (compares helicopters, blimps, etc.)
Titan orbiter Aerover mission
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Mar03/NPO20609.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
This reminds me of the DepthX submarine which was described in a recent issue of Wired. The probe would drop down, melt through the ice, and then autonomously search for hydrothermal activity on the sea floor.
r tfolio351/pages/352-EuropaProbe.htm (neat painting)s /jvanleer/astro%20sum01/astro101/missions_to_europ a.htm r ef.asp
The group working on it is currently putting together a version to explore and search for life in a rather hostile water-filled cave in Mexico. They've got a progress report here, with many details and pictures.
Some other links related to a Europa probe:
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/design/europa/
http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio/po
http://www.cascadia.ctc.edu/facultyweb/instructor
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/fob3
Scientific articles:
The Challenge of Landing on Europa
Possible ecosystems and the search for life on Europa
others
Yeah, sorry, sorry. When I used the term "animation" in the submission, I was mostly referring to the fact that it was an animated GIF, albeit a 2-frame one. In retrospect, something like "slideshow" may have been a better choice of term.
My apologies.
The worst part is that the site practices heavy censorship to reinforce this racism.
Hmm.. I guess I wasn't previously aware that FR deletes posts. Most of my experience on the site is with arguing in the evolution vs. creation debates. Despite being pretty pro-evolution, I've never had a comment deleted -- I've even had creationists commend my arguments. I guess it's possible that things may be different when it comes to "racism," though.
What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?
Supply convoys. Do you remember that story from last year where troops refused to go on a supply mission because it was too dangerous? From DARPA's 2004 FAQ:
Q: How will autonomous ground vehicle technology benefit the military?
A: The military is looking toward a future in which manned and unmanned systems work together on the ground and in the air to provide enhanced capabilities for U.S. forces. For an example of the utility of unmanned ground systems, consider Operation Iraqi Freedom. The combat troops moved quickly toward Baghdad, and were followed by supplies and materiel. Protecting the supply lines was critical. In the future, unmanned systems may be able to conduct resupply missions without using humans as drivers, and without requiring additional troops for protection.
Apparently Team Robo Monster is looking for programmers in the Los Angeles area. The team is headed by the guy from the noteworthy robots that jump blog. From their page:
We are currently seeking additional team members with the following skills and/or resources:
* Sensor integration
* DSP programming
* Gumstix hardware/programming
* Autonomy/AI - CYC/DAML or other ontology-based programming experience
* Game engine programming (for robotic simulation)
* Desert racing/driving experience
* Hobby robotics competitions (e.g. Robo-Magellan, Robotica, Robot Wars)
They've got quite a nice vehicle, and so far have things at the "drive by wire" stage.
Not sure what's with the blink tags on their web site, though.
(Note: I'm the submitter)
Is there something I'm missing which would make putting coral links into a story a bad idea? I assumed it would help with keeping the links from getting slashdotted.
Do you have a link? I tried searching for similar stories before I submitted this one, but wasn't able to find any.
Gee, I wonder what the average slashdotter is going to use this for. (link probably not work-safe)
Did you happen to see the link to autopano-sift? That's GPL'd, I believe.
I rather like these quotes from Griffin:
... Can America, through its mastery of human space flight, have a similar influence on the cultures and societies of the future, those yet to evolve in the solar system as well as those here on Earth? I think so, and I think our descendants will consider it to have been worth twenty cents per day."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683
"So, recognizing that others may differ, for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible."
"What the U.S. gains from a robust, focused program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along with the inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system. Is this valuable? The answer must depend on one's worldview, I suppose. But consider a map of the world today, and notice the range of nations in which English is spoken as a primary language, and in which variations on British systems of justice, politics, culture, and economics thrive today. Was the centuries-long development of the British Empire, based upon Britain's primacy in the maritime arts, a misguided use of resources? I believe not.
"The necessary requirements of human expansion into the solar system cannot be met without a greatly increased program of unmanned scientific exploration. This can only be seen as a "win-win" for all those involved in any aspect of space exploration. In the end, it comes down to letting robots and humans each do what they do best."
"For interplanetary flight, something more than chemical propulsion is clearly needed for other than return to the moon or, possibly, the first expeditions to Mars. Nuclear propulsion makes the most sense to me; several options are available, including both nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric concepts. We once had an operating, ground-tested (though not flight-tested) nuclear-thermal upper stage intended for use on the Saturn V. The program was cancelled thirty years ago, when it became clear that a Mars mission was not in the nation's immediate future. Numerous nuclear fusion concepts potentially applicable to space propulsion exist, most notably those involving electrostatic confinement of the nuclear core, but none of these is receiving more than token funding. There also exist a number of promising approaches to electric propulsion, notably the Vasimir engine concept. In the long run, some form of nuclear-electric propulsion is likely to offer the best combination of efficiency and packaging capability for interplanetary flight."
"I have alluded above to some of the technical hurdles that we face in a commitment to a permanent program of human space exploration. Broadly, the tools necessary for this enterprise include:
* Heavy-lift launch capability, in the 100 metric ton to LEO class or greater.
* Reliable, efficient, and cost effective transportation to LEO for moderate size payloads.
* Compact space qualified nuclear power systems.
* Nuclear and nuclear-electric upper stage vehicles for application to interplanetary flight.
* Space and planetary surface habitat and human suit technology.
* Technology and systems for utilizing the in situ resources of the moon, Mars, and asteroids.
* Reliable and routine Earth-to-LEO crew transfer systems."
"I will repeat only briefly my remarks above concerning ISS; we should do what is necessary to bring the program to an orderly completion while respecting our international partnership agreements, obtaining where possible as much scientific value as we can from the enterprise while accommodating ourselves to the fact that such value is inevitably limited."
"Regarding the Space
Thanks for the input. I may try some link culling in the future.
In congressional testimony he gave last year, Michael Griffin outlined a number of questions which he felt Congress and NASA need to ask. This list was pretty interesting, because many of them are the sorts of things which NASA is notorious for ignoring. It's refreshing to know that these questions are at least on the radar of NASA's new head:
(bolding mine)
# Why does spaceflight - human or robotic - cost so much more than other comparably complex human activities, and what can be done to remedy the situation?
# Is a serious program of human space exploration sustainable, given the "cost of doing business" presently associated with the enterprise?
# What incentives can be offered to proven and well-established aerospace contractors to devise innovative and cost-effective, yet safe and reliable, approaches to building a new human spaceflight infrastructure?
# Where and how does NASA intend to engage the entrepreneurial high-tech culture which has made our nation the envy of so many others, in so many areas other than aerospace? What can we do to bring the engine of capitalism to spaceflight?
# What is the proper role of prizes, or of pay-for-performance contracts, in stimulating and encouraging the high-tech community to devote its attention to aerospace?
# Can or should the Congress establish prizes for specific accomplishments in spaceflight, independently of NASA?
# What is NASA's proper role in the development of new space systems, beyond setting requirements to be met through competition in industry?
# What is NASA's proper role, as an agency of the U.S. government, in the conduct of future spaceflight operations?
# If the exploration of new worlds requires technologies and skills beyond those presently available within NASA - and it clearly does - how are the skills of other agencies and laboratories to be used effectively in the service of the larger mission? How will the overall effort be directed?
# Given that we as a nation will spend a certain amount each year on civil space activities, what would Americans prefer to see this money used for? What vision for space exploration excites people enough to cause them to believe that the money they spend on it is well spent? Can a reasonable consensus even be found? How do we know?
# Is the United States interested in leading an international program of space exploration? Which nations might be competitors, and which might be partners? How and in what role do we view our potential partners in the enterprise? What do our potential partners think about this? How do we know?
IMHO, it looks much worse as a comment, because of all the brackets which are tossed in.
In synopsis, Griffin has been willing eschew political expediency and stand on principle.
Yeah, I thought this quote from NASA Watch was particularly telling:
Editor's personal note: In 1993, during the redesign of Space Station Freedom, many of us felt that the books had been cooked by NASA HQ such that the SS Freedom configuration (Option B) was deliberately handicapped and that the other two options A (MSFC) and C (JSC) were given an unfair advantage. Hardly an apples to apples review. Mike Griffin, who led the Option B effort (headquartered at LaRC) wrote a letter for the record at one point, standing squarely on principle and pointing out the discrepancies and inequities in that review process. That letter received wide circulation - and Mike's NASA career suffered as a result. He was promoted to some pointless job by Dan Goldin and eventually left the agency. I can say from personal experience, that Mike Griffin has demonstrated personal integrity - and did so in a public way that was rather career adverse. I expect he will bring that same integrity to the job of NASA Administrator. As such, yes, at this point, I am biased in this regard.
An operative offered a shorter version of the story: "Bush Nominates Virgin."
I wonder if he reads slashdot.
By the way, just how many times this week has the Free Republic called for ethnic cleansing of various parts of the world?
Probably about as often as slashdot has called for Redmond to be nuked. Free Republic is a discussion site, and people post wacky stuff on there. Like slashdot, every once in a while you also see a post which doesn't suck.