An interview with Cynthia Kenyon, anti-aging researcher.

Randall Clague of XCOR reports on sci.space.policy:

The AST/AVR turf war is over. Patti Grace Smith and Nick Sabitini [sic] have jointly published a Notice in the Federal Register, 68 FR 59977, that divides up the pie very evenly. Launch vehicles are AST, airplanes are AVR, and hybrid vehicles – those which share characteristics of launch vehicles and aircraft – are both. The dividing line is clear and unambiguous, is the same as what AST
pre-announced at Space Access in April, and is trajectory dependent.

What this means is that the same vehicle can be an experimental aircraft on Monday, a launch vehicle on Tuesday, and an experimental aircraft again on Wednesday. Which it is depends on how you fly it. If you fly it so it meets the definition of a suborbital rocket, it’s a launch vehicle, and you need a launch license. If you fly it so it doesn’t meet the definition, it’s an experimental aircraft, and you need a pink slip.

This is good news for pretty much everyone. Flight test paperwork is a whole lot easier, but when we need to start charging for flights, we can – we just have to get a launch license. This is WAAAY easier than the equivalent route for airplanes, which is type certification. AST and AVR did a really good job on this compromise.

Patti Grace Smith is the head of the FAA-AST office that regulates space launch, and Nick Sabatini is the Associate Administrator in charge of the FAA-AVR. This is good news. If Randall is interpreting it correctly (I haven’t had the time to go look at the notice yet, myself) it means that Burt can continue to do his test flights as an airplane until he actually decides to light his rocket, at which point he’ll still have to get a launch license, but this further clarifies things. It implies to me that the agency is attempting to align itself with the congressional intent expressed in the recently introduced legislation, though it hasn’t yet become law.

I’ll have more thoughts later, after I’ve had time to read and digest the notice.

Iain Murray says that Mr. Putin has put a stake through the heart of the Kyoto Treaty.

Jacques Chirac, of course, is most disappointed.

Perhaps we need more allies to deal with this problem. If American troops are still dying like this a year from now, Bush will have a hard time getting reelected.

Looks like Hosting Matters is being hit again today. Little Green Footballs and Instapundit (among probably others) are unreachable again.

[Update in the afternoon]

For those who need your Instapundit fix, here’s his backup site.

We have a troll loose in the comments sections calling itself “Cheney Ticker.” I haven’t banned it yet, though I’ve edited slightly its foul language, but if it persists or gets worse, I may. It’s somewhat amusing in its inanity and low-class insults, and demonstrates a typical DU mentality.

Larry Kudlow says that the economy is about to really take off.

Tom Daschle is “very disappointed.”

To Dave Trowbridge and his new bride.

Here’s the new fallback position. OK, they’ll admit when called on it, Bush didn’t say that Saddam was an imminent threat, but, well, he implied it. Yes, somehow, he managed to imply something that he explicitly denied, in fact using the denial as part of his argument for removing Saddam.

Of course, he implied nothing of the kind, it’s just that these morons are, in retrospect, inferring it, because it allows them to pretend that this pretext for war (which never existed) has been invalidated by the failure (to date, it should be noted) to come up with ready-to-use WMD.

And of course, even in the midst of admitting that he was mistaken about this, this columnist continues another canard.

Seventy percent of the American people are under the impression that Saddam Hussein played a principal role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, although there is no credible evidence to support that. Bush has admitted that Hussein was not directly involved in the attacks.

This is an interesting statement. If that many people are under that impression, whose fault is that? A search for any administration claims that Saddam played any role, let alone a principal one, will be as fruitless as the search for administration claims that the threat was imminent. The deployment of the word “admitted” implies that Bush or administration officials had previously made such a claim, which is, of course, not true.

My use of the word “admitted” a couple paragraphs up is valid–the columnist has been forced to admit that his previous claim was wrong.

But his use of it is mendacious. The appropriate word here would be “claimed,” or “stated,” or “asserted.” If the people have been misled about Saddam’s involvement about September 11, Mr. Brazaitis should be taking his colleagues in the press to task–they’re the ones who are supposed to be informing the public–rather than trying to pin it on the Evil Bush administration.

But then, apparently, based on this and multiple other episodes, having an informed public is the furthest thing from their minds.

Dale Amon has some thoughts about robots, ethics, and whether Asimov’s three laws are immoral.