Carl Zimmer writes about the discovery of powerful new antibiotics from frogs. The best thing about them is that they may be impervious to the development of resistance on the part of bacteria.
Science At Work
How hard is it to shoot off a lock? A lot harder than it looks in the movies.
[via Geek Press]
The Truth Is Out There
I haven’t written anything about the former Canadian defense minister’s recent descent into (literally) loonytunes madness, but Thomas James has a good roundup.
More Iraq Urban Legends
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.
More Space Plans From “China”
Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”
But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:
But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.
If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?
Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.
[Monday morning update]
Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:
Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.
First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.
Her Fifteen Minutes Are Sooooo Up
What if they gave a peace rally, and no one came?
Momma Moonbat couldn’t agitate up a crowd at her “book” signing.
The pictures of Mother “Sadsack” Sheehan are priceless. Also note the Reuters spin.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the story from the WaPo. To their credit, they don’t sugar coat it.
Admittedly, it’s a lot easier to draw a crowd in August, when the media (and a lot of students) have nothing better to do, than on Thanksgiving weekend. But in the face of the latest vigorous defense of the administration, and the resulting polls, her time has definitely passed, and the media will no longer even attempt to prop her up. Well, other than Reuters…
[Update on Monday morning]
Here’s another pic from AP, with story that is less than genuous:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush’s ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.
Note that the wording allows (even encourages) the interpretation that she’s just a little early–that the adoring throngs are simply delayed, and on their way. Of course, it also allows the interpretation that she will be waiting forever, but I think that there would have been clearer ways to state that, if it was intended to be the (accurate) implication…
SpaceX Launch
Out of the Cradle is live blogging it. They seem to be weather delayed right now.
[Update at about 3 PM Pacific (two hours before the launch window closes]
They need to check valves on the LOX fill tanks and then clear the area restarting the countdown in 1 and a half to two hours.
What been driving the delays? weather? equip?
Weather at one point – then lox – no other
Boiloff of mechanical – doesn
One More Delay
Today’s Falcon 1 launch has been delayed until tomorrow:
In order to facilitate preparations for a missile defense launch, the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) has bumped the SpaceX Falcon 1 maiden flight from its officially scheduled launch date of 1 p.m. California time (9 p.m. GMT) on November 25. The new launch time is 1 p.m. California time (9 p.m. GMT) on November 26.