Pangloss

I think my point was more along the lines that you're asking the wrong question. It's not so important where we draw the line. What's important is whether we're willing as a society to allow unborn children to be killed in certain cases. I am. Others are not. But saying that there's an arbitrary line where they become "human" is somewhat of a denial of reality. More importantly (and I believe this is FAR more important), you are being dictated to think otherwise by the two opposing special interests who control the agenda on this subject.

That is, in fact, my position, and I don't think it's all that uncommon. In fact when I explain it to people in greater detail, I often find that they essentially agree with it, or at least don't have a major beef with it. Those conversations have generally helped lead me to the conclusion that most people who have firm opinions on abortion are actually the ones in the 15%-either-end extremes. The 70% in the middle are folks like me (more or less), who agree that it's probably a "killing", but that it may be a necessary evil given current technology. It's actually an excellent example of something else: The way the organized extremes control the social agenda in this country.

Okay, then if we've established that there are valid reasons why some web sites choose to do this, then the next logical question is, shouldn't people understand this and use it as the premise for further understanding of issues? Put another way, as I asked earlier, why is the it considered innocuous to post a link to the offending images, but if you show the picture then it's grounds for fatwah and jihad? Doesn't the technology more or less suggest that that perception is a little... silly? In other words, isn't the present Muslim outrage kinda pointless, given the nature of the web? Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it seems to me that there's a technological angle to the present issue that is lost on the mainstream media. They're going to give us an earful about irresponsible behavior in the blogosphere, and I'm thinking they've missed the point.

Yes I think that's a fair point (or several of them). (Minor addendum: In fact I believe Cheney has been issued a warning for not having the proper paperwork.) What do you guys think about the suggestion by the mainstream media that (essentially, to summarize this) the White House had an obligation to report this in the Saturday or Sunday daily briefs to the press? I guess I could see that point, so long as it's not twisted in such a way as to suggest that it equates to a conspiracy or cover-up. The press seems to sometimes demand that everyone do their homework for them (the lazy bums!), but I guess there might be a point to be made there. It just irked me with Elizabeth Vargas asked George Stephanopoulis on ABC News last night if the public had a right to know. Of course we have a right to know, but I really have a problem with the "because you didn't tell us you must think the public doesn't have a right to know" premise of that question. It just... gets under my skin somehow. On the other hand, even if it's all perfectly innocuous, then it means that the White House simply elected not to bring it up because it's not good press, and I wonder is that a good thing. I don't *like* that we're demanding 100% personal exposure from public figures (what's next, 24/7 video surveillance via the web?), but the White House already has a track record of spin when it comes to communications and I would prefer to see things heading the other way.

I'm not sure I understand these "cover-up" allegations. Cheney's staff notified the local sherrif's department within just a few minutes of the incident, and everyone was interviewed by deputies. Local reporters immediately picked up on the story and reported it on a local newspaper's web site within 18 hours of the incident. Where exactly is the cover-up here?

It's certainly possible to be opposed to abortion without being a "religious zealot", padren. Atheists seem to generally favor "life" when it involves opposing wars of aggression, but oppose "life" when it comes to abortion. It's an interesting contradiction. It's also one I happen to share, and I feel it's offset under certain conditions by the welfare of the person carrying the child. But then I also think that the war of aggression issue is potentially offset by issues such as non-compliance with international agreement. I'm just a whole mess of contradictions, aren't I? Almost exactly like a real human being. Imagine that. Quick, someone assign me to an ideological niche so I can get myself straightened out!

Figaro! Figarofigarofigarofigarofiiiiiigarooooo..... Sorry, got carried away with Ecoli's sig. (grin) Anyway, I think Ecoli and Bascule framed the standard response, but I can't help but notice that it raises another interesting question. What if a news site were to inline-link the picture off another site, like this (just to use something innocuous from today's Astronomy Pic of the Day).... Now our site isn't even hosting the image, it's just... passing it through. Given how trivial the technical difference between these two things are, why is there a perceived ethical difference between passing an image and passing a link? Why is the latter considered innocuous, but the former grounds for fatwah and jihad? Are we, perhaps, headed for another perception paradigm shift thanks to the Internet?

Eric Burns, the moderator of FNC's media-watch show "Fox News Watch" raised an interesting question on this past weekend's show, and I thought I'd pass it along here just to see what people think. Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures? I think it's an interesting question to ponder given the explosion of popularity and importance of web news outlets.

Yourdad, you've done nothing *but* troll-feeding in this thread. I don't think you've made one single contribution of any significant value in this entire six-page thread. (Which I am now closing because it's going nowhere.) At any rate, these minor issues like who signed off on who's resume amount to trivialities, IMO. Y'all are so busy making the troll wrong, and PCS is so busy getting the last word in, that the larger issue is going more or less ignored. This is how ideologues marginalize arguments in the "real world" too. Change the subject, focus on trivialities, and distract people from the bigger scope. It's called "sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere." What feeds it? Making crass overgeneralizations and straw man arguments like this one. What solves it? Paying attention to stuff that matters, but knowing where to draw the line. Don't get sucked into tit-for-tat, last-wording, or trivial issues. Acknowledge when the other guy has a point by saying "well you might be right, and I'm keeping an open mind about it" -- the ideologue has nowhere to go from that. Don't draw lines in the sand that you can't back up just because you're annoyed at the troll. Here endeth the lesson.

Lower gravity? Seriously? How much lower?

See here's the thing. Yeah it's annoying to have every little detail thrown back at you. It knocks you off course. Makes you struggle to remember what you were talking about. Make slip-ups and dumb mistakes. But it also makes you work harder to reach a conclusion. Because it's face it, "he's saying it because it's true" is hardly a definitive argument. Nor is simple contradiction. Or dismissing a group of people as morons. Some things are easy. Running a stable democracy isn't one of them. I expect serious citizens to step up to the plate. In my view, the flaws in our democracy lie, ultimately, at the foot of the inattentive, dismissive, and uninterested citizenry, ready to scoop up the most convenient "answers" from the next demogogue who happens by. Work harder.

That's interesting. I think the Vandenburg site is only about 6 or 7 hundred miles north in latitude. I didn't realize it made that much of a difference. But of course I'm sure these things are calculated to the nth degree, so the difference was probably more one of payload capacity than actual "can we reach orbit" questions. But I digress. Very interesting, Cap'n, thanks.

One of your better threads, PC, IMO.

Not to take that too literally or anything, but is it actually an 800 mph boost over all other locations? I mean, Savannah (for example) would presumably be moving at some decent percentage of that, would it not? (Breif mod note: As we see from the above the answer is not political in nature (no harm in asking the question, though), but if anybody would like to discuss the political aspects of NASA's continued existance in the Sunshine State, and the influence it has on politics, that might be interesting. If not I may go ahead and move it over to Physics or something.)

So you're saying that anybody who doesn't think that Donald Rumsfeld (that's a hint, folks) was wrong in comparing Chavez to Hitler is a "Bush-is-God robot"? Come on, this kind of rhetoric is nonsense as well as being completely useless. I'm extremely disappointed in the quality of discussion in this thread. I think I'll contact an admin at DemocraticUnderground.com and see if they have room for it.

That might make an interesting subject for discussion in and of itself, especially since you and I see that issue so differently. But at any rate, I'm not squelching anything, and I'd like to see the discussion continue. I think it's a very interesting and provocative question, wondering where to draw the line with guys like Chavez. I don't think there are any easy answers here. But there is a clear and obvious need for the international community to be able to decide that a government is acting in the wrong, regardless of how it came to power. Saying that countries are "good" just because they were freely elected is chipping the tip of an iceberg so large it would allay the global warming fears of even the most extreme environmentalist. There has to be more. I think this quote is very relevent: It may not be the entirety of the answer (and it obviously wasn't intended as such), but it's a step in the right direction, IMO. And this response is not relevent: The first example is a reasonable analysis. The second is a straw man. The United States proves its freedom and defense of democracy every single day, and has been doing so for centuries. So that kind of example, even if 100% accurate, is insufficient to make the point it claims to make. On the other hand, Venezuela and Chavez do NOT have a long history of freedom, tolerance and constitutionally-protected democracy. They do not have a traditionally- and socially-established foundation of checks and balances. And so it does not take a vast number of examples to make the point that Chavez is, at the very least, dangerous and a cause for international concern.

I think that's an extreme over-reaction to the above posts. And pretty impolite to boot.

Thread closed. As noted above, we already had a thread on this, which may be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18247

The White House is touting the fact that the defense budget is only an increase of something like 7%, but overall under the Bush administration it's up something like 25%, or around $100 billion (very rough figures). But if I remember correctly, it actually rose by an even higher percentage under Clinton. In fairness, much of this is due to deferred spending that took place under the Clinton administration. That's not necessarily Clinton's fault -- a number of recent presidents have had to make tough long-term research and development calls that affected future presidencies, and if anything Clinton can be credited with ending the "two theaters of foreign war" policy (although it didn't actually end until Bush). Examples of programs that have recently come to deployment (i.e. appropriations) include two new fighter planes, a new transport plane, and a complete revamp of the equipment deployed to our ground forces (the development of non-tracked armored vehicles was a fascinating but almost completely unnoticed story during the Clinton years). For the rest of the increase, it's almost impossible to conceive that any president would be able to do anything about that either. Ike warned us about the military-industrial complex. We didn't listen. So even if Al Gore were president today, the budget would probably be exactly the same as it is at the moment. Give of take a few dozen billion dollars (say, a handful of NASA budgets). (sigh) As Senator Everett Dirksen famously never said, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money". Today we have to multiply that rule of thumb by a factor of one hundred before anybody even bothers to blink.

By the way, that if my prediction is true, NASA will actually have a vast *surplus*, even if it launches all of its current non-manned projects. IMO the shuttle will never be launched again, and that's 30% of NASA's budget right there. Of course, being a government agency, it will attempt to spend every dime it is allocated, whether it launches shuttles or not. What are we going to do about that?

I'm actually in favor of the Mars plans, but frankly I question NASA's overall purpose and institutional capabilities, and I would like to see a plan instituted that gradually moves NASA out of the launching business over the next couple of decades, and into the business of supporting, training, research/evangelism and monitoring of private enterprise space ventures.

I agree with you on that Sev, but Bascule has a valid point as well, IMO. You read things or you learn things in class and you take them to heart, but as you learn more you either consciously or unconsciously confirm and cross-check what you've learned before. That doesn't mean repeating every experiment, but it does mean both reading and comprehending multiple sources and different/differing observational data. In fact you *have* to do this if you want to pursue graduate studies. Try defending a dissertation on "because Professor Sevarian said so" and you'll probably be in some trouble. Your students aren't going to take your QED lecture on faith except in one place and one place only: On your examinations! There the word of Professor Sevarian is a matter of faith. Everywhere else... not so much. (grin)

Maybe, but the budget has been growing by leaps and bounds for quite a while now. The Defense budget surged dramatically under Clinton and while I'd have to do the math it may have grown faster percentage-wise under Clinton than Bush (but probably not). (I think it's something like 200-350 under Clinton, and 350-425-ish now under Bush. But these are just top-of-head figures.) So catch-phrases like "Bush is the biggest spender since Johnson" are easy to utter, and may even turn out to be supportable by statistics, but they don't cut to the heart of the problem at all. It's true he hasn't used the veto pen, for example, and that's unfortunate, but equal (if not greater) blame has to go to Congress, which is where virtually all of the local-issues influence on the budget takes place (except when it's a media frenzy item like Katrina).

Typical anti-right blather. It's easy for a two-bit hack at Salon to say that no Republican regime (sic) would double the tax rate. Frankly no Democratic "regime" would do that either. ANY politician who supported that kind of hike would be committing political suicide. If you actually parse his "solutions", he doesn't even *have* one, just a litany of complaints against conservatives. That partisan nonsense isn't going to solve the problem.