![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.hrmacmillanspacecentre.com/calendar.htm
(SR is a SF author of whose work I'm generally quite fond, and his perspective makes for an interesting collection of essays.)
(SR is a SF author of whose work I'm generally quite fond, and his perspective makes for an interesting collection of essays.)
another omnibus post
1 July 2007 17:47The ultimate high dive: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/3c082d2daa463110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Bogotá's "urban happiness movement", focusing on making city residents happier through tackling long commutes head-on: http://randomdude.com/blog/threads/2476-Hedonics-aka-Happiness-Economics
Building something like a functional hobbit-hole on the cheap: http://www.simondale.net/house/
The role of Cheney in the Bush administration, in 4 parts: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/
A pretty funny parody of a drug commercial with an anti-war-on-drugs message: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/incarcerex.cfm
People that can (and will) print your business card on a peanut (shell): http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/29/print_your_businessc.html
An interesting essay (and, including the original articles and the comments, a debate of sorts) on Wikipedia and its ilk: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/06/27/knowledge_acces.html
Search engine for science videos: http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/07/01/1241250.shtml
Bogotá's "urban happiness movement", focusing on making city residents happier through tackling long commutes head-on: http://randomdude.com/blog/threads/2476-Hedonics-aka-Happiness-Economics
Building something like a functional hobbit-hole on the cheap: http://www.simondale.net/house/
The role of Cheney in the Bush administration, in 4 parts: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/
A pretty funny parody of a drug commercial with an anti-war-on-drugs message: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/incarcerex.cfm
People that can (and will) print your business card on a peanut (shell): http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/29/print_your_businessc.html
An interesting essay (and, including the original articles and the comments, a debate of sorts) on Wikipedia and its ilk: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/06/27/knowledge_acces.html
Search engine for science videos: http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/07/01/1241250.shtml
space travel policy
3 May 2007 12:28http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/05/01/death.in.space.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14002908/
Sounds like NASA is dodging a lot of these, but at least they're being brought up as issues that need to be addressed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14002908/
Sounds like NASA is dodging a lot of these, but at least they're being brought up as issues that need to be addressed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Space.html
Not really surprising when phrased that way, but nevertheless I find the policy statements made a bit alarming for a couple of reasons:
(1) It sounds like it's setting the stage for a belligerent response the next time that someone messes with one of our satellites (which I believe that the PRC may do on a regular basis).
(2) We're essentially reserving the right to blow someone else's space capability out of the sky if we feel like it.
(3) This quote I find particularly concerning because of its phrasing: "The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests," the policy said.
_That_ sounds like they're expecting an attack on our launching facilities (or some other ground-based space-related installation), and are, again, positioning themselves to have a pre-rolled excuse. (Possibly an October Surprise, if it's not too late for that.)
Or am I just being paranoid? (Bush certainly makes that stance an easy one to fall into...)
Not really surprising when phrased that way, but nevertheless I find the policy statements made a bit alarming for a couple of reasons:
(1) It sounds like it's setting the stage for a belligerent response the next time that someone messes with one of our satellites (which I believe that the PRC may do on a regular basis).
(2) We're essentially reserving the right to blow someone else's space capability out of the sky if we feel like it.
(3) This quote I find particularly concerning because of its phrasing: "The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests," the policy said.
_That_ sounds like they're expecting an attack on our launching facilities (or some other ground-based space-related installation), and are, again, positioning themselves to have a pre-rolled excuse. (Possibly an October Surprise, if it's not too late for that.)
Or am I just being paranoid? (Bush certainly makes that stance an easy one to fall into...)
