January 20, 2004
Of course, a cynic might answer that we have NASA in order to employ some 18,000 government employees in space centers distributed throughout many powerful congresscritters' districts.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
Today, Hobbyspace posts an interview of Prof. Yoshifumi Inatani, the head of the RVT program.
Of particular interest to this blog is the fact that Rocket Man Mark Oakley helped prepare some of the questions on vehicle design.
Read the whole thing, and then ask yourself where we might be today if the military had kept control of the DC-X (remember, as Jerry Pournelle points out, that the first thing NASA did with the DC-X was to crash it -- through incompetence rather than malice, but still. . .)
The interview has some links to pictures and video. You may also want to check out these videos of the DC-X before its untimely demise: Small (8MB) or Large (31MB).
Posted by: JohnL at
09:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 2 kb.
January 19, 2004
Posted by: JohnL at
09:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
Amazing. Kitschy. Fun. The QRIO.
Posted by: JohnL at
08:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
January 17, 2004
I'm a native Texan, unlike Robert, but I won't hold it against him. In fact, he gets a head start on honorary Texanhood by being from New York, which in my experience ranks a close second behind Texas on the citizen-arrogance scale.
Robert, I'm sorry to say that I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, as movies. I liked them a lot more than the Star Wars movies, which were my previous favorite fantasy epic. The first movie was closest to the source material, I thought. Give it a solid "A." The third was also pretty true to the source material, right in the B to B+ range. The second. . . give it a C minus (would have been a D, but for Helm's Deep). I still can't forgive what Peter Jackson did to Faramir's character. It was completely wrong, and even worse, unnecessary (unlike the deletions of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, which I
thought were justified). I think overall, Peter Jackson completely grokked the hobbits and the Rohirrim; in fact, if I could see only one scene from all three movies, it would be the charge of the Rohirrim in the third movie. I can forgive his fumbling with the Numenoreans and elves --- there's just too much backstory to adequately convey their nobility and otherworldliness in a movie.
Thanks again for the link, Robert. Come back soon.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 1 kb.
January 16, 2004
Roast Lamb and Vegetables
First, you want to marinate a medium boneless lamb roast (about 2 1/2 lb.) in a large freezer ziploc with the following for about 2-6 hours:
- 1/4 cup Extra-virgin Olive Oil
- 1/2 cup red wine
- 1 Tbsp. Worcestershire sauce (or to taste)
- 1/2 tsp. Tabasco sauce (or to taste)
- 1/2 tsp. Cumin
Preheat oven to 400F. Remove the roast from the bag and place it on a rack in a covered roasting pan. Save the marinade. Cut 6 cloves of garlic into halves and strip the leaves from about 4 branches of Rosemary. Cut evenly-spaced slits in the roast and then slip the garlic and rosemary into the slits. Arrange about 1 lb. of small red potatoes (unpeeled or peeled - your call) around the roast. Sprinkle all with kosher salt and freshly-ground black pepper to taste. If the oven is still preheating, proceed to the next steps, otherwise put the roast in the oven, uncovered, for 15 minutes.
Separate the oil from the marinade (use a turkey baster, or even better, one of these).
Toss the following with the separated oil and arrange in a shallow 9 x 13 baking dish (add a little more olive oil if necessary to lightly coat all vegetables):
- 1 Large Red Bell Pepper, sliced in 1/4" by 2" strips
- 1 Zucchini Squash, sliced
- 1 Yellow Squash, sliced
- 3/4 lb. Small Tomatoes, whole
- 1 medium Red Onion, sliced
- Leaves from 3 or 4 Rosemary branches
Take the remainder of the marinade and add enough red wine to make it one cup. About this time, your timer should go off. Reduce the heat to 325F, pour the wine/marinade mixture over the roast and potatoes and cover. Set the timer for 30 minutes. When the timer goes off, slide the vegetable dish onto the rack below the roast. Now start checking the roast for doneness. 145F for Medium Rare, 160F for Medium, and 170F for ruined -- er, Well-Done.
If you timed the vegetables right, they should remain in the oven for about 10 minutes after you remove the roast, which should sit for about 10 minutes before you carve it. Slice the meat across the grain, arrange it with the potatoes and veggies, and garnish with some more Rosemary.
Gather the pan juices in a small gravy boat for au jus. Serve with the wine you used in the marinade (I'm using a 2000 South Australian Shiraz tonight).
Enjoy!
Posted by: JohnL at
05:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.
January 15, 2004
In the United States, one may only employ lethal force in the defense of life, and only when the ability, opportunity, and intent of the adversary to inflict serious bodily injury are simultaneously present. I think Texas was among the last of the states to keep legal the use of force in defending one's property, though it too has caved in to the times.
According to the Texas Penal Code, a person may use deadly force:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under [the section of the code covering self-defense];
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
If the person uses deadly force against a person who is in the process of breaking into the person's home, then the reasonableness standard of subsection (2) doesn't apply. See Texas Penal Code sec. 9.32. This is much like Colorado's "Make My Day" law which allows an occupant of a home to use "any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force" against an intruder when the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder "has committed a crime in the dwelling in
addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." See Colorado Revised Statutes sec. 18-1-704.5.
I haven't researched any other western states' laws, but at least these two states don't require much justification for a homeowner to waste an intruder. Disclaimer: Although I am an attorney and am licensed to practice law in Texas, I am not a criminal lawyer, and more importantly, I am not your lawyer. So don't do anything in reliance on this off-the-cuff assessment of these statutes.
Update: We see now why I'm not a criminal defense lawyer. . . Both commenter Michael Parker and the Curmudgeonly Clerk correct Eric and point to the more relevant "Make My Day" provisions (9.41-9.44) in the Texas Penal Code.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
January 14, 2004
My immediate reaction is somewhat negative, beginning with the setting. First, the President is at NASA and is addressing NASA employees, not the American people: "This will be a great and unifying mission for NASA, and we know that you'll achieve it. I have directed Administrator O'Keefe to review all of NASA's current space flight and exploration activities and direct them toward the goals I have outlined."
I don't want to watch superhuman astronauts exploring on my nickel. I want to do exploring for myself. And what's up with this? -- "We'll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery. The vision I outline today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship." Just what we need. Another feel-good international boondoggle like the ISS. I am afraid that these
steps will turn outer space into an Antarctica -- another preserve for PhDs and noone else.
Rand Simberg has some preliminary thoughts on this. Check out Jerry Pournelle, too. His prize proposal, and his favoring a higher-profile military role both parallel my thoughts on federal government involvement in space.
I would actually like to see several "dreamer fithp" (read this, if you don't get the reference) on the President's commission -- Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Burt Rutan.
Most other space policy bloggers are getting in on the action:
Fred Kiesche, who should put up a tipjar on his site.
Jay Manifold, who is promising more details real soon.
Still waiting to read Chris Hall's assessment of the speech.
Coming soon: my opinion of why we need to go (prompted by Anne Applebaum's execrable spew), and some thoughts on how I think we ought to go.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:54 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 3 kb.
January 13, 2004
Scott is a member of the boomer generation, but his thinking on this issue is, refreshingly, fair and clear. He calculates the bill that our current elders are presenting to my children as $43.5 trillion. He essentially restates the libertarian nugget "TANSTAAFL." At some point benefits must be decreased or taxes increased (no!) to prevent a massive default under the system.
I hope in my lifetime to see some significant extension of the human lifespan. I expect it, actually. I am ready for the future of Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire,
even its dystopian aspects.
As a consequence, I think we need to be ready to rethink our "social obligation" to our elders. Medicare and Social Security, in my mind, are unconstitutional -- they are well beyond any reasonably necessary or proper enumerated power of the federal government. But are we ready as a society to take more personal responsibility for saving, for being ready to work in our retirements, to take care of our parents and grandparents? We need to be. Fortunately, if we do see some sort of "boosterspice" in our lifetimes, we will be young and healthy enough, even at the age of 65, 70, or even 90 to continue to be active and productive citizens and not wards of the state.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
Scott is a member of the boomer generation, but his thinking on this issue is, refreshingly, fair and clear. He calculates the bill that our current elders are presenting to my children as $43.5 trillion. He essentially restates the libertarian nugget "TANSTAAFL." At some point benefits must be decreased or taxes increased (no!) to prevent a massive default under the system.
I hope in my lifetime to see some significant extension of the human lifespan. I expect it, actually. I am ready for the future of Bruce Sterling's Holy Fire,
even its dystopian aspects.
As a consequence, I think we need to be ready to rethink our "social obligation" to our elders. Medicare and Social Security, in my mind, are unconstitutional -- they are well beyond any reasonably necessary or proper enumerated power of the federal government. But are we ready as a society to take more personal responsibility for saving, for being ready to work in our retirements, to take care of our parents and grandparents? We need to be. Fortunately, if we do see some sort of "boosterspice" in our lifetimes, we will be young and healthy enough, even at the age of 65, 70, or even 90 to continue to be active and productive citizens and not wards of the state.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
And what's with the hereinaboves, hereinbelows, and wheretofores? I majored in German in college, and those constructions are very much alive there. But not in English. Ask someone to write a "legally binding" document and they for some reason start sprinkling "shalls" and "shall nots" like Shakespearean actors.
(That "someone. . . they" construction was intentional, by the way). I actually had a mild debate with another lawyer about this once, who felt that some "grandeur" in legal documents and court pleadings was a good thing. Oh, please.
One of my ongoing missions is to update all of my corporation's forms to use plain, modern English, and to do everything I can to revise other lawyers' forms for style whenever I am forced to use them. One of my key resources is a book by Bryan Garner, a noted authority on legal writing and the English language. Legal Writing in Plain English is one of my bibles (along with the Chicago Manual of Style, Lapsing into a Comma, and the invaluable Strunk and White). Even if you are not a lawyer, these are excellent resources for writers.
If you are interested in matters grammatical, Garner provides a daily usage tip here (where you can also sign up to receive his daily usage tips via email, as I have done).
Posted by: JohnL at
09:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
The author of The Road to Serfdom.
One of the great proto-libertarians of the twentieth century.
That's who.
But if you're reading this, you probably already knew that. Virginia Postrel has an excellent background on this champion of liberty here.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: JohnL at
08:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
January 09, 2004
Charles Paul Freund, in the current [February 2004] issue of Reason, reviews a book entitled Where's My Space Age? by Sean Topham (see Freund, Charles. "Goodbye, Space Child: The space age's bureaucratic dreams sputtered out." Reason. February 2004: 55-61). As reported by Mr. Freund, Where's My Space Age? presents the material artifacts of the future as envisioned at the dawn of the space age -- from toybox illustrations, to comic book art, metallic dresses, and modular architecture -- and follows their development. Freund places this development in a dynamist context:
"[T]he Space Age stands out among various futures because, like the Atomic Age that it overlapped, it seemed to be taking shape. But only some of it -- communications satellites, for example -- reflected people's desires. Much of it was a state program established for geopolitical reasons. . . which meant that it was to follow the trajectory of the state's needs. As those needs shrank, . . . the Space Age that depended on the state's shrinking dreams got ever smaller too. Politically mandated futures don't develop, because the forces behind
them are artificial."
You can see a hint of this in William Gibson's The Gernsback Continuum, where a modern person falls into the alternative world where the idealized vision came true. As Freund writes, "the actual future turned out to be one of material, individuating plenitude and not at all of minimalist class conformity."
But old fashions have a way of resurfacing. Which brings us to this. Or should I say this. My initial reaction is "how cool." But my immediate emotional response is moderated by the fact that I remember the frustration of waiting for the shuttle Columbia to take off after years of delays and cost overruns. Shuttle has not delivered on the promises made to justify its construction.
I can also distinctly remember Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" speech, and his Space Station speech. We now have a barely habitable white elephant of a station. I also remember writing a space law paper a little more than 10 years ago that cited Bush 41's ambitious Space Exploration Initiative, which was a dead letter by the time the paper was done being edited just a few months later.
All that being said, I generally agree with the reported staging. I strongly believe we need to return to the moon first -- this time to stay. We cannot (and should not expect to) identify all hazards and risks before a multiple-year mission in deep space, which is what a manned landing on and return from Mars would entail. The moon is relatively close, but is the perfect "proving ground" to learn construction techniques, resource extraction techniques, and other skills that would be necessary to survive on Mars.
Also, if we do it right, the moon could be a great tourist destination (not much further away, timewise, than an ocean cruise). If we do it right, then the settlement of a moon base will be done in such a way that leads to cheaper access to orbit for ordinary people. If we do it right, parts of the Mars mission could be built and launched from the shallower lunar gravity well.
But notice all of the "if we do it rights. . ." I unfortunately have little confidence that the same agency that produced Shuttle and the ISS (and that crashed the DC-X as soon as it got it from the BMDO) can do this right. I'll have to reserve final judgment until the President makes his speech and there is something in writing to review. I tend to agree with Rand Simberg on these matters (and have been following his policy postings for some time). If you haven't already done so, read his preliminary post on this topic (he is sure to post more as more details become available) and read the comments left by his readers.
I'll update, too, as more details come out.
Update: I deleted a redundant sentence above. It seems from this article that President Bush agrees with my idea about going to the moon first as a "proving ground" for Mars.
Update: The article is now online here.
Posted by: JohnL at
06:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 5 kb.
January 08, 2004
William H. Stoddard at New Troy has an interesting article about the ethics of Ayn Rand. As he explains, objectivist ethics rely upon the premise that it is only the concept of life that makes value possible. As value is something that one acts to gain or keep, all ethical actions should be directed to keeping oneself alive. Thus every function of a living organism is (or should be) directed toward a single goal: the organism's survival. But, as Mr. Stoddard illustrates, this isn't, in general, true. He uses the tale of the "Wet Nurse" (Tony) in Atlas Shrugged to illustrate that
merely preserving one's life is not always the ethical choice. Instead of a pure "survival" ethics, Mr. Stoddard posits a "legacy" ethics, the selfish desire to have something of value survive beyond one's own life.
I particularly like his discussion of the possible influence of Aristotle's metabiology on Rand's thinking here, when Darwinian biology would point more towards a legacy system of ethics. If you are into Rand, objectivism, darwinism, or any of the above, read the whole thing.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
January 07, 2004
Posted by: JohnL at
09:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:42 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
Robert Heinlein once stated:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, and lastly die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
For my entire adult life, I have avoided specialization, maintaining a broad range of interests and pursuits (while semi-specializing in a couple -- at least enough to make a living!) And in fact the conventional wisdom holds that evolution favors generalist species over highly specialized ones. Carl Zimmer summarizes this wisdom and points to the early hominid Paranthropus as the classic example of an over-specialized evolutionary dead-end. But then he points to an abstract of an article "in press"(*) that challenges this conventional view of Paranthropus and concludes that Paranthropus was likely an ecological generalist like early Homo.
If true, then why did Paranthropus die out and Homo survive? Are we technologically-empowered super-generalists secure in our evolutionary niche? As Carl concludes: "Paranthropus looks on our happy beliefs from its oblivion and wonders."
(*)"In Press" here means the article has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, but not yet published.
Posted by: JohnL at
09:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
57 queries taking 0.1001 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
