Thursday, August 18, 2005
Thinking Clearly About Space, Part 1
We appreciate the thoughtful essay, "Thinking Clearly About Space," concerning the future of space exploration. Blaming "scapegoating" and "too much hustle" for the absence of progress is good as far as it goes. But the real failure can be found elsewhere.
The problem is the boring focus on incrementalism, to the great detriment of a single breakthrough which would make everything possible. And who is to blame? The scientists, the robots and the U.N.
1. Lack of dilithium crystals
The percentage of the U.N.'s annual budget dedicated to the location and mining of dilithium crystals is less than 1%. This is a recipe for failure. The U.N.'s irrelevance has been proven once again.
2. Lack of robots
There should be at least one robot per household, like on the Jetsons. This is not including the robot armies. So where are all the robots?
3. Lazy, stupid robots
The robots we have mostly just sit around waiting to vacuum something. They have completely non-human personalities, scoring "William Hurt" or less on standard Turing Tests.
4. Faster Than Light Travel
Whether it be the warp drive, the hyperdrive, or worm technology, it's clear somebody has completely dropped the ball on this one. Is anyone even working on it, or are we just waiting for the robots to take over and invent something?
5. Time Travel
This is the easiest one of all. We already know how to do it, it's just that we're stuck going one direction at that boring old speed of one day per day. If more flexible time travel were accomplished, it would solve all the other failings: we could just hop ahead in time and get all the other technology we need from the future. But, based on what we've seen so far, no one -- not even in the future -- has yet figured this out.
The problem is the boring focus on incrementalism, to the great detriment of a single breakthrough which would make everything possible. And who is to blame? The scientists, the robots and the U.N.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Judy Miller Did Not Write A Story About Plame!
Never was there a chorus of imbeciles to which Andromeda was not asked to contribute its smooth baritone, so let Andromeda say what was said this morning by Bob Dole, as it has been said by so many who weep copious tears for the fate of Judy Miller: she did not write a story about Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. That's right. As inconceivable as this may seem to people whose intelligence rivals that of buttered toast, Patrick Fitzgerald is seeking information from Miller concerning her discussions with Administration officials about Plame -- even though she never wrote a story about it.
Why in the world would Fitzgerald want the information about those conversations which show what Rove or Libby or Bolton knew, and when they knew it, concerning Plame's identity as a covert operative, when Miller never wrote a story in the subject? Clearly, there is no possible explanation for this. Which only makes the court's decision to jail her for refusing to talk even more offensive and inexcusable. Once Miller invoked the First Amendment and refused to provide the information which will show whether Administration officials were lying to the grand jury or to investigators, the only question that remained was: did she write a story? If she did not, then her invoking the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press becomes inviolable and all further questioning of her should cease, lest the Constitution burst into flames, bringing down the entire Republic. On the other hand, of course, if she had written a story, then the First Amendment would, umm, be irrelevant, I guess.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is whether the reporter's privilege should be drafted as sufficiently broad to protect government officials intent on leaking national secrets in order to damage to their political opponents, or the privilege will be so restricted as to be practically useless, that is, limited to protecting sources who reveal information to promote the public interest. Andromeda supports a very broad privilege in which the first question that is asked is, "Did the reporter end up writing a story on the subject?" and the second question is "Did the story advance the political interests of the party in control of the government apparatus?" Whenever the answer to the first question is no, or the answer to the second question is "yes," the privilege will be absolute. In those situations where the reporter wrote a story based on leaked information and it only revealed information wrongly being withheld by government officials, the privilege will not apply.
Why in the world would Fitzgerald want the information about those conversations which show what Rove or Libby or Bolton knew, and when they knew it, concerning Plame's identity as a covert operative, when Miller never wrote a story in the subject? Clearly, there is no possible explanation for this. Which only makes the court's decision to jail her for refusing to talk even more offensive and inexcusable. Once Miller invoked the First Amendment and refused to provide the information which will show whether Administration officials were lying to the grand jury or to investigators, the only question that remained was: did she write a story? If she did not, then her invoking the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press becomes inviolable and all further questioning of her should cease, lest the Constitution burst into flames, bringing down the entire Republic. On the other hand, of course, if she had written a story, then the First Amendment would, umm, be irrelevant, I guess.
Anyway, what we're talking about here is whether the reporter's privilege should be drafted as sufficiently broad to protect government officials intent on leaking national secrets in order to damage to their political opponents, or the privilege will be so restricted as to be practically useless, that is, limited to protecting sources who reveal information to promote the public interest. Andromeda supports a very broad privilege in which the first question that is asked is, "Did the reporter end up writing a story on the subject?" and the second question is "Did the story advance the political interests of the party in control of the government apparatus?" Whenever the answer to the first question is no, or the answer to the second question is "yes," the privilege will be absolute. In those situations where the reporter wrote a story based on leaked information and it only revealed information wrongly being withheld by government officials, the privilege will not apply.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Terraforming: God's Will
Because this question arises repeatedly at our annual AndromedaCon, Andromeda will now address the religious issues surrounding terraforming. Terraforming is being discussed as a way to make Mars livable for human beings.
There are some great big sillies who refuse to recognize terraforming as mankind's right and destiny. These great big sillies view mankind as God's gift to Earth in the same way smallpox blankets were white man's gift to Native Americans.
But simple logic reveals God's will on this subject. Imagine if God gave mankind a stick of chewing gum. Would God expect mankind to just keep it and preserve in its original clean, pristine, condition? Of course not, God would expect mankind to chew it up and spit it out! And has God not given us Earth, delicious, double-mint Earth in a shiny foil wrapper? Of course He has. Just as He gave us the Garden of Eden. And remember in the Garden of Eden how He said we could eat from every Tree there, every single tree, more or less? So it is with Earth!
There are some great big sillies who refuse to recognize terraforming as mankind's right and destiny. These great big sillies view mankind as God's gift to Earth in the same way smallpox blankets were white man's gift to Native Americans.
But simple logic reveals God's will on this subject. Imagine if God gave mankind a stick of chewing gum. Would God expect mankind to just keep it and preserve in its original clean, pristine, condition? Of course not, God would expect mankind to chew it up and spit it out! And has God not given us Earth, delicious, double-mint Earth in a shiny foil wrapper? Of course He has. Just as He gave us the Garden of Eden. And remember in the Garden of Eden how He said we could eat from every Tree there, every single tree, more or less? So it is with Earth!
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Time to Cut and Run
Andromeda reporting from the front lines ...
Things are getting pretty hairy up here -- oh, God! -- the carnage! the devastation! the sickening stench! Rotting myths sprawled across the field of battle, dying illusions stacked up like cord wood, pieces of lies spattered across your correspondent's notebook ... your correspondent can hardly continue, air! give me some air! Ladies and gentlemen back home, it is barely possible to breathe here, but we must continue, we have to bring you at home this story, the dark news of this horror.This is Andromeda reporting.
Ever since Andromeda was first assigned to cover the Bush Administration's Massive Assault upon Reality, we knew this was going to be the tough one, the one that would, years later, wake us screaming in the middle of the night -- if we even survived -- but this has been even worse than expected. Today's news -- the utter routing of an entire division of the government's elite Unreality Guard -- has shaken the politicians' morale to its very foundations.
We look into the poor dogfaces of all the NeoCons and ChickenHawks and we don't see living men and women any more, we can only see that hollow look of the already dead. Sure, they continue to fire their weapons, there was skirmishing as usual on that scorched battlefield of the Sunday morning talk shows, but their spirit clearly was no longer in it, they were just going through the motions.
It is surprising they are able to do even that -- they need only poke their heads up out of their Fox! holes to see it coming ... remorseless, unstoppable: Brutal, Hard, Reality rolling slowly but steadily over the corpses of the "We Did It For Democracy" battalion, just as it had crushed the "We Did It For The WMD" corps before that, and now the "Turn It Over When The Iraqi Security Forces Are Ready" picket is starting to wobble. The fear here is palpable, and it has a smell, a vile smell, that cuts right through the smoke of delusions dying ...
U.S. Threatens To Invade Itself
Despite U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, we now learn US-controlled Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction!
The U.S. has certainly been more than patient with itself, but clearly, it would be a pointless endeavor for the U.S. to molly-coddle the U.S. with more and more inspections -- if the U.N. again shows its irrelevance by failing to stop U.S.-controlled Iraq from building these dangerous weapons, it is up to the U.S. to take action -- because the very next warning may be a Mushroom Cloud.
Consequently, the U.S. has given itself a deadline. By August 20, 2005, the U.S. must provide itself indisputable proof that it has destroyed all WMD and WMD-related activities in U.S.-controlled Iraq. Absent proof acceptable to the U.S., the U.S. will immediately commence military action. "These people hate freedom!" declared President Bush, vowing to "take out" command and control, "even if the cowardly U.S. leadership uses the Washington, D.C. population as human shields."
The U.S. has certainly been more than patient with itself, but clearly, it would be a pointless endeavor for the U.S. to molly-coddle the U.S. with more and more inspections -- if the U.N. again shows its irrelevance by failing to stop U.S.-controlled Iraq from building these dangerous weapons, it is up to the U.S. to take action -- because the very next warning may be a Mushroom Cloud.
Consequently, the U.S. has given itself a deadline. By August 20, 2005, the U.S. must provide itself indisputable proof that it has destroyed all WMD and WMD-related activities in U.S.-controlled Iraq. Absent proof acceptable to the U.S., the U.S. will immediately commence military action. "These people hate freedom!" declared President Bush, vowing to "take out" command and control, "even if the cowardly U.S. leadership uses the Washington, D.C. population as human shields."
Friday, August 12, 2005
The Truth About Cindy Sheehan
What do we know about Cindy Sheehan? (1) She is opposed to the war in Iraq. (2) Her son died fighting that war. And (3) she is a left wing media whore.
But are there any open questions? Yes, there are. And thanks for asking. One question that we hear from many of our readers is, "Oh, Andromeda, you are so wise and pleasant-smelling, please tell us if Cindy Sheehan has the right to say such things as 'The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction.'"
The answer to your question, surprisingly, is yes, she is allowed to say that. Her error is in saying it publicly. Or aloud. Such statements destroy our troops' morale. In fact, they were really happy about being away from home in the blasting heat of the desert, with the under-armored Humvees, and the newest IEDs from Iran, and all of that, until Cindy Sheehan made her anti-war statements. Now, they just want to come home. Hearing such public dissent makes them think its become a democracy here while they were gone, and they long to see what that's like.
Many readers also ask, "But can she say that stuff about Bush sending his own children to fight in the war if he believes in it so much?" Here, the answer is no. She is not allowed to say that. The Bush girls would survive perhaps one week in Iraq and therefore suggesting they go there is, legally, the same thing as a direct threat against them.
Some readers have posed the more challenging question, "But is it okay for her to dishonor the memory of her son and all the other soldiers who've died or been injured by implying they died in vain?" To answer this question, readers, we ask you to consider this hypothetical example. Suppose there really were a war which was brought on false pretenses and which was actually making things worse the more it was fought. (This is purely a hypothetical question, clearly.) Should Americans then point out the futility of the war? Or should they instead allow the war to continue, telling the soldiers repeatedly the war is right, so the soldiers will feel their sacrifice was worthwhile? The answer should be obvious: lots and lots of happy, deceived, dead soldiers is better than there being just a few dead soldiers, who knew the truth and were resentful.
All of the questions about Cindy Sheehan we have received come down to this: is it okay for people to protest a war? The answer is yes, but never by referencing any personal experiences. And also not publicly. Or aloud.
But are there any open questions? Yes, there are. And thanks for asking. One question that we hear from many of our readers is, "Oh, Andromeda, you are so wise and pleasant-smelling, please tell us if Cindy Sheehan has the right to say such things as 'The President was wrong about weapons of mass destruction.'"
The answer to your question, surprisingly, is yes, she is allowed to say that. Her error is in saying it publicly. Or aloud. Such statements destroy our troops' morale. In fact, they were really happy about being away from home in the blasting heat of the desert, with the under-armored Humvees, and the newest IEDs from Iran, and all of that, until Cindy Sheehan made her anti-war statements. Now, they just want to come home. Hearing such public dissent makes them think its become a democracy here while they were gone, and they long to see what that's like.
Many readers also ask, "But can she say that stuff about Bush sending his own children to fight in the war if he believes in it so much?" Here, the answer is no. She is not allowed to say that. The Bush girls would survive perhaps one week in Iraq and therefore suggesting they go there is, legally, the same thing as a direct threat against them.
Some readers have posed the more challenging question, "But is it okay for her to dishonor the memory of her son and all the other soldiers who've died or been injured by implying they died in vain?" To answer this question, readers, we ask you to consider this hypothetical example. Suppose there really were a war which was brought on false pretenses and which was actually making things worse the more it was fought. (This is purely a hypothetical question, clearly.) Should Americans then point out the futility of the war? Or should they instead allow the war to continue, telling the soldiers repeatedly the war is right, so the soldiers will feel their sacrifice was worthwhile? The answer should be obvious: lots and lots of happy, deceived, dead soldiers is better than there being just a few dead soldiers, who knew the truth and were resentful.
All of the questions about Cindy Sheehan we have received come down to this: is it okay for people to protest a war? The answer is yes, but never by referencing any personal experiences. And also not publicly. Or aloud.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Intelligent Gravity
As regular readers know, Andromeda is long accustomed to combatting and overcoming the closed-mindedness, intolerance, and bullying mentality of those who -- because they wear fancy robes and hats, and speak to their minions in front of great halls, and want so badly to believe they are right -- simply refuse to accept the clear, obvious and indisputable evidence that Andromeda presents. We are talking, of course, about the scientists. Sure, they have all their pet theories and castles in the air, which are forced-fed down the throats of school children, simply because these science toughs fiercely control and desperately protect all their fancy scientific instruments, like their cyclotrons, supercomputers, telescopes, electron microscopes, and chalk. But Andromeda did not need all of their gizmos to prove conclusively its alternate theory of gravity -- which it now demands to be taught in public schools -- Intelligent Gravity.
Sir Isaac Newton described gravity as follows: F = m1*m2*G/r^2, where "G" is the universal gravitational constant and "^" is a carrot. The flaws in Newtonian Gravity were all too obvious to Andromeda, and we have always found it very surprising those flaws were not discovered long before Einstein. For example, why should a pound of concrete -- big, heavy concrete, for cripe's sakes! -- weigh exactly as much as a pound of light, fluffy feathers? And are we supposed to believe it's just a coincidence the weight is exactly the same, even when measured on an electron microscope?
But, of course, when Einstein pointed out the flaws in Newton's theory, all of sudden, it's like, "Oh, wow, you're so smart, Albert, your new theory is so great, your hair is really cool, you can work in the German patent office, whee!" and so on. But now who will point out the numerous flaws in Einstein's theory? No one except for Andromeda because they're all so scared of his black holes, that's who!
Imagine space-time as a four-dimensional space. Did you do that? Good. Now, gravity can be seen as a perturbation of that space, such that even light, which has no mass, will "bend" around a star, because it is following the curved shape of space-time. OK. Did you really imagine space-time as a four-dimensional space?
Now, what if the light bent around the star because someone -- not God, definitely not God, because this is not a religious theory -- but just somebody, who knows who, tells it to bend? And what if this somebody is all-knowing, all-powerful and simultaneously in all places, plus he has a white beard but not like Santa's? Is this theory not just as good as the crazy Einstein theory? Which doesn't even make sense because there's only three dimensions?
In fact, Andromeda's Theory of Intelligent Gravity is superior to the so-called scientists' theory of gravity, with all their beakers, and labcoats, and fancy sportscars, because Andromeda's Theory of Intelligent Gravity completely explains everything, and has no open questions. Whereas the so-called scientists are just left gaping and drooling when they are asked to decide between general relativity and Brans-Dicke.
Sir Isaac Newton described gravity as follows: F = m1*m2*G/r^2, where "G" is the universal gravitational constant and "^" is a carrot. The flaws in Newtonian Gravity were all too obvious to Andromeda, and we have always found it very surprising those flaws were not discovered long before Einstein. For example, why should a pound of concrete -- big, heavy concrete, for cripe's sakes! -- weigh exactly as much as a pound of light, fluffy feathers? And are we supposed to believe it's just a coincidence the weight is exactly the same, even when measured on an electron microscope?
But, of course, when Einstein pointed out the flaws in Newton's theory, all of sudden, it's like, "Oh, wow, you're so smart, Albert, your new theory is so great, your hair is really cool, you can work in the German patent office, whee!" and so on. But now who will point out the numerous flaws in Einstein's theory? No one except for Andromeda because they're all so scared of his black holes, that's who!
Imagine space-time as a four-dimensional space. Did you do that? Good. Now, gravity can be seen as a perturbation of that space, such that even light, which has no mass, will "bend" around a star, because it is following the curved shape of space-time. OK. Did you really imagine space-time as a four-dimensional space?
Now, what if the light bent around the star because someone -- not God, definitely not God, because this is not a religious theory -- but just somebody, who knows who, tells it to bend? And what if this somebody is all-knowing, all-powerful and simultaneously in all places, plus he has a white beard but not like Santa's? Is this theory not just as good as the crazy Einstein theory? Which doesn't even make sense because there's only three dimensions?
In fact, Andromeda's Theory of Intelligent Gravity is superior to the so-called scientists' theory of gravity, with all their beakers, and labcoats, and fancy sportscars, because Andromeda's Theory of Intelligent Gravity completely explains everything, and has no open questions. Whereas the so-called scientists are just left gaping and drooling when they are asked to decide between general relativity and Brans-Dicke.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
The Importance of Having Space Stations
Like you, I always thought space stations were just for smashing against the Death Star that Saturn is building, going "puff!" "piff!" and "paff!" as the Death Star enters Earth orbit.
But I recently learned how wrong that thinking was. Space stations are very important.
Alien walks into a bar.
ANDY: Hey.
Alien: Hey.
Silence.
Alien: Listen, would you happen to know where I can find, uh, um, Earth's space stations?
ANDY: Uck! Say it, don't spray it! Hey, is that acid?
Alien: A little. Try baking soda.
ANDY: On my face?
Alien: So that's your FACE?
ANDY: I think I need medical attention. What is it you wanted?
Alien: Well, see, the thing is, we're getting ready to invade and, huh, the thing is, when we invade a planet, we always use the space stations to hold our little babies, a place where they can play around away from the death rays, and feed on the station crew.
ANDY: Oh, my god! Really? Oh, well, this -- this is embarrassing. We don't have any space stations.
Alien: What!?
ANDY: Oh, no, no, don't get me wrong, we used to have two. But we kind of let them burn up.
Alien: Well, isn't that great? Isn't that just great?
ANDY: Sorry. Oh, hey, we are building one!
Alien: Really? When will it be done?
ANDY: Oh, right. Well, we're having a little trouble with that.
Alien: Well, cripes! So now what am I going to tell the Supreme Leader?
ANDY: Hmmm, NASA keeps telling the American people it will be done by 2010. You could just tell the Leader that. But listen, for your own, sake, don't vouch for it, just say that's what NASA says.
Alien: Geez, thanks, human. Your death will be mercifully slow.
ANDY: Actually, humans think a quick death is merciful.
Alien: Really? We think letting someone live a long, full life and die of old age is merciful, but to each his own. See ya!
ANDY: Wait! Come back, what I meant was -- oh, criminy!
But I recently learned how wrong that thinking was. Space stations are very important.
Alien walks into a bar.
ANDY: Hey.
Alien: Hey.
Silence.
Alien: Listen, would you happen to know where I can find, uh, um, Earth's space stations?
ANDY: Uck! Say it, don't spray it! Hey, is that acid?
Alien: A little. Try baking soda.
ANDY: On my face?
Alien: So that's your FACE?
ANDY: I think I need medical attention. What is it you wanted?
Alien: Well, see, the thing is, we're getting ready to invade and, huh, the thing is, when we invade a planet, we always use the space stations to hold our little babies, a place where they can play around away from the death rays, and feed on the station crew.
ANDY: Oh, my god! Really? Oh, well, this -- this is embarrassing. We don't have any space stations.
Alien: What!?
ANDY: Oh, no, no, don't get me wrong, we used to have two. But we kind of let them burn up.
Alien: Well, isn't that great? Isn't that just great?
ANDY: Sorry. Oh, hey, we are building one!
Alien: Really? When will it be done?
ANDY: Oh, right. Well, we're having a little trouble with that.
Alien: Well, cripes! So now what am I going to tell the Supreme Leader?
ANDY: Hmmm, NASA keeps telling the American people it will be done by 2010. You could just tell the Leader that. But listen, for your own, sake, don't vouch for it, just say that's what NASA says.
Alien: Geez, thanks, human. Your death will be mercifully slow.
ANDY: Actually, humans think a quick death is merciful.
Alien: Really? We think letting someone live a long, full life and die of old age is merciful, but to each his own. See ya!
ANDY: Wait! Come back, what I meant was -- oh, criminy!
The Shuttle Has Grounded!
Hooray! The first return to flight flight has returned to not flying, proving once and for all that space exploration is safest on the ground. If, after another two and a half years of study, America learns space exploration is inherently dangerous, it will have to decide if it is willing to let those who are willing to take the risk take the risk. So come on, America, let NASA pop some staples into the foam by the PAL ramp, give it a couple of wraps of scotch tape, and shoot Atlantis into the sky! If you go any slower about building the space station, it's going to have to be replaced before it's done being built. Don't you want a nice space station for when the aliens invade?
Monday, August 08, 2005
A Little Cloud
Citing Wispiness Outside Safety Factor, NASA postponed the first day's landing attempts due to "slight risk of cloud." NASA claims concern Commander Collins' view of the runway would be obscured, but of course it was dark anyway, it's an ILS landing, and Collins has thousands of hours of flight experience, at least one or two of which probably included landing despite a puffy little cloud lurking nearby.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Just Let It Go
We concur with the many blogs who find Novak's behavior in walking out of that CNN show mysterious. To our mind, the whole thing seemed scripted, but badly scripted. Talk about a completely non-believable set-up: Novak arguing with Carville about whether Katherine Harris is ugly? The FCC fought off demands from several children's organizations that Novak's face always be pixelated, while it has been proven scientifically that Carville's face causes a subliminal form of hysterical blindness -- ask anyone if they can really remember what he looks like. Yet they have opinions on Harris' looks?
But what did Novak mean, "Just let it go"? It looked like he was fine after shouting "That's bullbleep!" but then he said, "Just let it go," paused, and walked out. Was he talking to the host? To himself? Or was it perhaps a question? "Are you gonna just let that go, Ed Henry?" While each of these theories is enticing, only one theory matches all of the facts. It was a hypnotic suggestion. Look at Novak's hands as he makes the statement, see the light in his eyes as he speaks, and note the video clip has been played over and over, and Novak has been watched more and more closely with each playback -- especially by who? Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, that's who. Look, look deep into my eyes! Do you not see glittering there your very soul held in Satan's vile grip? Do my bidding, do it now, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald!
But what did Novak mean, "Just let it go"? It looked like he was fine after shouting "That's bullbleep!" but then he said, "Just let it go," paused, and walked out. Was he talking to the host? To himself? Or was it perhaps a question? "Are you gonna just let that go, Ed Henry?" While each of these theories is enticing, only one theory matches all of the facts. It was a hypnotic suggestion. Look at Novak's hands as he makes the statement, see the light in his eyes as he speaks, and note the video clip has been played over and over, and Novak has been watched more and more closely with each playback -- especially by who? Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, that's who. Look, look deep into my eyes! Do you not see glittering there your very soul held in Satan's vile grip? Do my bidding, do it now, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald!
Wayne's Mom Called
OK, we were exaggerating a little when we said Wayne Hale climbed on top of a table, sprayed himself with whipped cream, and rubbed it all over his body, chanting, "Who's gonna re-enter, who? Who's gonna re-enter, who?" As far as his sweet ol' Mom is concerned, he's just the guy who gave sincere, honest briefings that confused us with their sincerity and honesty. And with that, Wayne's Mom, we ask that you end the massive DDOS to the Andromeda site -- you're not just hurting Andromeda, you're hurting the thousands, if not hundreds, of people who are helped by Andromeda each and every day.
Wayne Hale, MBA
Wayne Hale claims he has no MBA. B.S. as Mech.E from Rice, M.S. as Mech.E from Purdue, that's all his bio says. Yet, at every post-MMT briefing, he insists on mystifying us with B-school jargon. "MBWA"? He claims that means "management by wandering around." But how would he know that? Still, we don't think he's getting very good grades in his B-school classes, because it actually means "management by waltzing around." As in, just barging in, exploding with meaningless business school terminology to show how important you are, and sashaying out, asking yourself, "Who were those people? Who were those little, little people?" According to one engineer -- exclusive to Andromeda! -- Hale actually climbed on top of a table of insulation blanket material, stomping on the insulation as he crowed, "Dep-u-tee! Dep-u-tee!" while rubbing his thighs.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Somerby Rubs Your Powdered Thighs And Tells You It's Raining
Don't get us wrong: we like The Daily Howler. A lot. Unlike certain blogs we could mention that you're reading right now, he actually does work and genuinely tries to be fair. But could someone explain today's The Daily Howler to us?
The penguin bit, that's obvious. We totally understand that. Who doesn't hate penguin reproduction? Stupid penguins. But we can't understand how he missed the obvious connection to how the press treated Al Gore in 2000. (Hint: absurd reproductive system proves God does not exist.) And, of course, the Palmeiro story is perfectly reasonable: because it is not possible to know who's telling the truth, let's just trust Jose Canseco.
But when he returns, for the second day, to how correct Digby's analysis of Novak-vs-Harlow is, we are left wondering whether he really does mean to single out Digby for his remarkable accuracy when Somerby agrees with only one sentence of the Digby piece. If that is the standard, surely Andromeda, which has over its history produced one accurate sentence, and possibly two if you don't require the accurate words to be consecutive, surely Andromeda is equally deserving of mention. Yet the powdered elitist Howler pampers its thighs too much to notice -- uh, well, we weren't going to talk about that, because the question we have is how can Somerby criticize everything about using Plame's name (even if she wasn't a CIA operative), but then say that the clear partisan gunslinger Novak was perfectly right to use her name? That is, he agrees the fact is not important, he agrees it's only going to be used to smear Joe Wilson's manhood or qualifications, and yet Novak was right to print it.
Among penguins, of course, your manhood and your qualifications are the same things and, interestingly, smearing your manhood is actually part of that complex and beautifully absurd dance known as penguin love. Which, perhaps coincidentally, is also an accurate description of French love, as narrated by Morgan Freeman.
The penguin bit, that's obvious. We totally understand that. Who doesn't hate penguin reproduction? Stupid penguins. But we can't understand how he missed the obvious connection to how the press treated Al Gore in 2000. (Hint: absurd reproductive system proves God does not exist.) And, of course, the Palmeiro story is perfectly reasonable: because it is not possible to know who's telling the truth, let's just trust Jose Canseco.
But when he returns, for the second day, to how correct Digby's analysis of Novak-vs-Harlow is, we are left wondering whether he really does mean to single out Digby for his remarkable accuracy when Somerby agrees with only one sentence of the Digby piece. If that is the standard, surely Andromeda, which has over its history produced one accurate sentence, and possibly two if you don't require the accurate words to be consecutive, surely Andromeda is equally deserving of mention. Yet the powdered elitist Howler pampers its thighs too much to notice -- uh, well, we weren't going to talk about that, because the question we have is how can Somerby criticize everything about using Plame's name (even if she wasn't a CIA operative), but then say that the clear partisan gunslinger Novak was perfectly right to use her name? That is, he agrees the fact is not important, he agrees it's only going to be used to smear Joe Wilson's manhood or qualifications, and yet Novak was right to print it.
Among penguins, of course, your manhood and your qualifications are the same things and, interestingly, smearing your manhood is actually part of that complex and beautifully absurd dance known as penguin love. Which, perhaps coincidentally, is also an accurate description of French love, as narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald Wrapping Up
We use the above title only in the hopes of triggering Somerby's wrath over at The Daily Howler. Not that Andromeda needs the attention. Things are going swimmingly here. We have already engaged the services of that consulting firm that created the TPM Cafe spin-off to the Talking Points Memo, as well as the Arianna Huffington spin-in of all sorts of other bloggers to one big, bulgy blog. Expect the big roll-out this spring. It's going to be thoughtful, provocative, insightful, and, most especially, news-breaking. Plus celebrities. The Pope's already initialed a napkin contract. Not the current Pope, either. How's that for breaking news, huh? Yeh, we thought so. For balance, we will also have the Anti-Pope. Boy oh boy, the sparks are sure to fly whenever those two get together. We also have the anti-Lama, so the Dalai Lama is sure to come on board.
But the point is, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation! So says the New York Times. Or anyway that's what one of its sources says. A source sympathetic to Rove. In other words, Rove's lawyer. Or Satan himself. And all he actually said was he thought the questions Fitzgerald asked Ralston and Hernandez were "typical of those posed by a prosecutor wrapping up the loose ends." But we selected just the words "prosecutor wrapping up."
So what do we now know? One, Fitzgerald is wrapping up his case and it will likely include an indictment of President Bush. And the Anti-President. And two, the new Andromeda Cafe Postington super-blog will break more news than there is!
But the point is, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is wrapping up his investigation! So says the New York Times. Or anyway that's what one of its sources says. A source sympathetic to Rove. In other words, Rove's lawyer. Or Satan himself. And all he actually said was he thought the questions Fitzgerald asked Ralston and Hernandez were "typical of those posed by a prosecutor wrapping up the loose ends." But we selected just the words "prosecutor wrapping up."
So what do we now know? One, Fitzgerald is wrapping up his case and it will likely include an indictment of President Bush. And the Anti-President. And two, the new Andromeda Cafe Postington super-blog will break more news than there is!
Globbing Handfuls of Hope on the Insulation Blanket
The astronauts continue to perform flawlessly. The same cannot be said of the people on the ground. Thankfully, the duct-tape-and-hacksaw method of removing the gap-filler was never tried. We at Andromeda rather wonder if even anyone at NASA seriously believed in that method. Watching the video of how "easy" it would be, we could only see hacksaw scuffing against the spacesuit, hacksaw cutting the astronaut's gloved fingertips, hacksaw, helmet, spacesuit, etc., scratching and scraping the nearby tiles, and hacksaw scattering as much white powder as Bogota.
Which brings us to the newly discovered secret of the series of successes (no, we do not call them near-failures). The primary solution to the gap filler problem was to hope it pulled out easily by hand. This solution was resorted to only after hoping the gap filler would not cause a problem on re-entry proved to be untenable. But hooray! It worked!
Remember NASA's solution to the fuel sensor problem? The first launch was aborted because of it, so they went right to work to solve the problem and finally came back with: we can't find the problem, so let's just try to launch again and hope it doesn't happen again! Another success!
On the other hand, what was the solution to the PAL Ramp foam problem? They looked at it carefully, studied it in detail, thought it all over, and concluded, "Let's hope it doesn't fall off." Hmmm.
So let's hope the insulation blanket problem can be solved and let's hope the absence of the gap filler (which we must assume was put in there for a reason) will cause no problems on re-entry.
Which brings us to the newly discovered secret of the series of successes (no, we do not call them near-failures). The primary solution to the gap filler problem was to hope it pulled out easily by hand. This solution was resorted to only after hoping the gap filler would not cause a problem on re-entry proved to be untenable. But hooray! It worked!
Remember NASA's solution to the fuel sensor problem? The first launch was aborted because of it, so they went right to work to solve the problem and finally came back with: we can't find the problem, so let's just try to launch again and hope it doesn't happen again! Another success!
On the other hand, what was the solution to the PAL Ramp foam problem? They looked at it carefully, studied it in detail, thought it all over, and concluded, "Let's hope it doesn't fall off." Hmmm.
So let's hope the insulation blanket problem can be solved and let's hope the absence of the gap filler (which we must assume was put in there for a reason) will cause no problems on re-entry.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Tripping The Boundary Layer
Tripping the boundary layer refers to the decrease in drag caused by surface roughness. As reported exclusively on this blog (as far as you know), the protruding gap fillers pose a potential risk to re-entry for Space Shuttle Discovery. Although other shuttles have safely returned despite protruding gap fillers, the concern is localized heating may cause tile damage. So they are going to try to fix it. This has never been tried before. It will involve an EVA which extends around the shuttle, out of sight, something that has also never been done before. And they plan to fix it, just by pulling it out.
EV1: OK, Houston, I finally managed to get out here and I am positioned directly over the protruding gap filler.
HOUSTON: Very good, EV1. Now, reach forward carefully, grip the tab between your fingers and pull it out.
EV1: Houston, are you kidding? You want me just to grab it and pull it?
HOUSTON: Yes, what's the big deal, why not, go ahead, try it.
EV1: Fine. I'll try it. Here goes. Well, I pulled on it and it wouldn't budge.
HOUSTON: What do you mean you pulled on it? Did you put some muscle behind it?
EV1: No, of course not, I don't want to damage the thermal protection --
HOUSTON: Come ON! What are you doing? Haul on it like you have a pair!
EV1: OK, I am pulling now with all my strength --
HOUSTON: Wuss! Sissy!
EV1: OK, I have chipped two footholds into the tile and I am pulling it with both hands! There! I got it!
[Loud comedy fart noise]
HOUSTON: [Burst of laughter, various voices] Ha, ha, ha -- he did it, he just pulled it out, I think he tripped the boundary layer! [Laughter continues.]
Smells Like Free Spirits
OK, everybody, be very quiet, stay very still. Terrorists can smell freedom, so just thinking critical thoughts is almost sure to force them to attack. That's right, invading Iraq and abusing prisoners cannot be viewed as provocation for terrorists, because such thinking smells too much like freedom and we know for sure they hate freedom. So please stay still, stay quiet -- oh, no, Jimmy Carter, don't!
