AAAAAAHHHH!!!! IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!
Now the FR backup site is on the fritz. Part of a "vast left wing conspiracy"??
Or more likely, Focault's Pendulum broke the Internet again.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
To fellow FReepers coming here wondering where FreeRepublic went, John Robinson says that there's been a mix-up on Verio. They've completely dropped off of the net. You can go to the "backup site" for more info. Click here.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
George W. Bush has a few choice nicknames in Iraq. But it's not what you think. In northern Iraq, they've pinned a few affectionate ones onto him. (They can't understand why Europeans are so anxious to see Saddam stay in power.) Among these new nicknames is Abu Jinan, "a pun on 'Father of Jenna'--meaning 'Father of Paradises.'" according to this article on OpinionJournal.com.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
FReeper SirFishalot reports that 9 "virtual protestors" at his workplace were let go yesterday for theft. These people were part of the so-called "virtual march" on Washington DC. It was really more of a DoS attack, though I'm not sure how successful it was.
(Yes, FreeRepublic is really sloooooow today. John says that he's looking into it.)
Long story short, these 9 people made hundreds of phone calls to Washington (~1200!), sent hundreds of FAXes and sent thousands of emails... all on company time! (And before you ask, SirFishalot is an independent contractor using his own laptop and a cellular modem. As he puts it, he's stealing from himself when he's online; not the company.) This company has a very plain, easily understood policy on the use of computers and phones for personal business: DON'T! They also make it clear to their employees that they monitor the usage of these systems.
Now these 9 have plenty of free time to participate in the pro-Saddam demonstrations!
Sunday, February 16, 2003
Monday, February 03, 2003
in the comments about the loss of the Columbia:
What if... If you go to target="_blank">FreeRepublic.com, you'll find dozens of posts that
involve brainstorming about possible was the tragedy could have been
avoided. This is, I think, human nature. We want to fix things. The idea
that this was simply an unavoidable accident is unpaletable to many
people. No one likes that helpless feeling.
Granted, it's only been about 48 hours since the accident, but it's
looking more and more like damage to the left wing's thermal tiles was
to blame. About 24 hours after the launch, reviews of the launch films
showed a piece of debris striking the left wing. Worse still, it looks
like the exact point of impact may have been the gear well door. This is
a weak point in the wing; the worst spot to have a burn-through. href="http://qs240.pair.com/sfnvideo/sts107/030203e212_qt.html"
target="_blank" title="QuickTime needed to view clip">A clip of the
impact is here. This was about 80 seconds into the flight. If I
remember correctly, the shuttle is supersonic at that point. Even a
light object will hit with considerable force. The clip shows just such
a violent impact.
Back to "what if...". Some people have wondered why they just didn't
abort the flight. NASA maintains landing sites in Africa and Spain for
just such a contingency. The problem, as stated above, is that they
didn't spot the problem until the next day. They have a ~4 minute window
to bail out of a launch and land at a "TAL" site. "Couldn't they have
used the arm to look under the wing?" This mission didn't require the
arm. It was removed to save weight. "Couldn't they have spacewalked
under the wing?" This brings us to the $64,000 question: Even if they
could, what would they have done next? Assuming that they could reach
the underside of the wing without causing more damage, the shuttle crew
isn't equipped to repair the orbiter's tiles. (Though this leads me to
my own personal "What if": What if they had a thermally resistant
version of Bondo to trowel into a damaged tile.) Confirming the damage
wouldn't have saved the crew. There's currently no way to repair damaged
tiles in situ and no way to
protect the damaged area during reentry. Rather than surprise at the
unexpected loss of the orbiter and crew, we'd have all been treated to
the horror of knowing that a
crew was about to be lost.
accident caused by insulation breaking off of the External Tank, what
next? After the Challenger was
lost, NASA shut down the shuttle program for over two years. I don't
think that such a shut down is necessary this time. When the style="font-style: italic;">Challenger was lost, a "cultural"
flaw at NASA was to blame; they were grandstanding. They launched when
it was far too cold. NASA's "can-do" attitude had morphed into a
"must-do" attitude. That doesn't seem to be the case here. No one could
have known that the insulation would break off. And even if we all
wince at their estimate of the size of the gash in the tiles, there
wasn't anything that could have been done. There wasn't a cultural
failure as happened with the Challenger.
Thus there isn't a need for a protracted shut down. The bonding method
for insulation on the ET needs to be improved. Perhaps a
"better-than-nothing" tile repair technique should be designed. But
that's about all that needs to be done. NASA could be safely flying by
the time the ISS crew needs a ride home.
the time that the Challenger
was lost, my wife was working with the same material that went into the
boosters' O-rings. She and her co-workers all assumed that the launch
would be scrubbed because of the cold. They all knew that the rubber
became brittle at cold temperatures. They were shocked to hear that the
launch was going ahead.
Saturday, February 01, 2003
It's obviously not a good morning.
I remember Columbia's first flight. I was a senior in high school. The day that it returned to Earth, a friend and I ditched school to watch it land at Edwards AFB. That was back in the days before everyone started to think that shuttle flights and landings were mere routine. I still remember the way she looked high overhead when we all heard the twin sonic booms with two chase planes in tow.
Friday, January 31, 2003
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Blixey's pixeys report "Iraq Seems Unwilling to Give Up Weapons"
Nothin' gets by the Swedish Chef, does it?
Monday, January 27, 2003
There's a book called "Dial 911 and Die". (Available here from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Its basic premise is that gun control works because enough people have been convinced that Government will protect them. As a result, people get killed waiting on hold. David Kopel shows that it can happen on a larger scale.
In the 1990s, the UN convinced the Bosnia Muslims that they didn't really need arms of their own; UN forces would be there to protect them. This is in keeping with the UN's view that "The spread of illicit arms and light weapons is a global threat to human security and human rights". By this, Koffi Annon means the types of arms we Americans recognize as protected by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. These are small arms that one can use to protect home and hearth. The type that the Bosnian Muslims surrendered to the UN.
The kind they could have used when the Bosnian Serbs rolled into Srebrenica on July 11, 1995.
Over 7500 Bosnian Muslim men and boys died there. They died waiting for the UN to come and rescue them. The Dutch troops assigned to protect the Srebrenica area never showed.
Now fast forward a few years. It's Fall of 2001. Four aircraft take off from East Coast airports. Their passengers are mostly Americans who've also been told that their Government will protect them in times of danger. They've been conditioned to think that active resistance to violence on their part is inappropriate. "Just dial 911." They've been told that fighting back against criminals will make things worse. They are all sure of this. And the 19 foreigners on board were all well aware of how the others on the planes were indoctrinated into this thinking.
The rest of that history we all know. We also know how one plane's American passengers realized, unfortunately too late, that they were responsible for their own safety. They realized that Government could not protect them and that action on their part would be their only hope. The passengers of Flight 93 fought back. They lost their lives in the fight, but in doing so, they saved an untold number of lives in Washington D.C.; including, perhaps, many in Congress who would have the rest of us disarm in the belief that Government will always be there to protect us.
Saturday, January 25, 2003
Friday, January 24, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)