The Bear's Key

The Nano from India gets 50 mph and costs $2,500. Too bad it's not sold here. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17984516 India's Tata Motors has unveiled what is being billed as the world's cheapest car — the $2,500 Nano. ..... At about 10 feet long and 5 feet wide, the car accommodates four large adults comfortably, automotive reporter Murad Ali Baig told NPR — and it comes in a variety of colors. It meets all safety and environmental requirements, Tata said. And, in these days of escalating gas prices, it gets a respectable 50 mpg and has lower emissions levels than the scooters now produced in India. The Nano has rear-wheel drive and a two-cylinder, 35-horsepower engine, and can reach speeds of 60 mph, Baig said. The basic version of the Nano is spare. There's no radio, no passenger-side mirror and only one windshield wiper. It has seat belts, but no air bags, and the rear-mounted engine means there is little storage space. The basic version (above) doesn't have much for comfort, but if you really want some extras for it, they have a deluxe edition -- which most people there buy. The article linked below suggests for Detroit automakers to make a similar kind of vehicle, as one solution to escape their financial rut. What Detroit can learn from the dirt-cheap Nano car By the way, the U.S. already beat 42 mpg...over twenty years ago. The 1986 Chevy Sprint got 44 mpg city and 53 mpg highway.

Of course. It's more like you said: a curve ball. Regardless, it tickled my expectations going into your reply post, and the opening quip cracked me a smile. The good thing at least...Obama is showing a decent ability to change his mind when new facts or realities are introduced/highlighted -- which is a refresher (unless they deduced the same as you and therefore made it a political strategy to wait).

Here's a good one... Does it take the graviton longer to reach us (as would a photon) through expanding space? Hence, might it also become stretched -- much like a photon -- by this space expansion?

Yeah, I hoped the Obama fans wouldn't be excusing him, but instead show a good example of principles, and soon as I glimpsed iNow's response I was like "Doh! Stepped right into that one" To be fair, I can't say iNow is doing that and certainly isn't being overly defensive about it, even being willing to compromise, but your response was funny because I sensed you were doing a test of sorts. As for me, it's essential we hold this administration to an even higher standard than usual. Change is more possible than ever before, and it's not going to occur by letting them slip comfortably into the politician routine. There might be risk in exposure, yet that's mostly the Bush Administration's fault, not Obama's. We can't have transparency, only to dismiss it when the previous leader's f*-ups resulted in shameful and/or controversial activities that might generate a storm of backlash. Taking responsibility for your actions, isn't that a conservative motto? If the Bush Admin did nothing wrong, there should be no problem -- right? However, if any Bush excusers claim a need to hide their dirty work, it must indeed be dirty. Or, maybe it's even filthy. I'm definitely with you on this, Pangloss.

Government does not have such a right. Exactly. It's not Social Security that failed, it's the politicians' highway looting of its funds that crippled the system. Hopefully not on purpose (as tactical sabotage).

Maybe I sould have elaborated a bit more. I'm taking about writing fiction: someone develops a plot, characters, and a scenario, then posts it for our reading enjoyment and critiques. Also, I offered "Science Fiction" as a name-change, which replaces "Pseudoscience" instead creating a new subforum. We keep the rest of it ("and Speculations") unchanged or even change it to "Wild Guesses". Regardless, no one's able to post fiction stories they came up with in any section they wish.

Correct, but more like a Writer's Corner -- stories of entertainment that deal with futuristic or undiscovered-as-of-yet science.

Do you still have a "land line" Well how else is one going to escape the Matrix?

The Hubble's new powers seem a bit extraordinary. It'll be awesome to see the resulting images. Hubble telescope poised for grand cosmic finale http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30580829 The astronaut crew that will give Hubble its tune-up will launch aboard the space shuttle Atlantis on May 11 for an 11-day mission. The excitement over the mission and Hubble's capabilities afterward is palpable among NASA scientists. ........ "We have reformulated so many different areas of astronomy," Leckrone said. "There is no area of modern astronomical research that hasn't been profoundly affected and changed by Hubble." With its new components, Hubble will continue to do science in these many of these areas, with the hopes of shedding even more light on the dark spots of space. Hubble will further investigate the architecture of the universe, as well as the structure of individual galaxies. "Hubble will look all the way from the nursery to the old age of galaxies," Leckrone said. Hubble's new superpowers http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/08/1926148.aspx The new instruments....should open the way for new wonders and speed up the pace of discovery during Hubble's final five years. ........ WFC3 takes full advantage of manufacturing standards that just weren't available for earlier instruments - such as the camera it's replacing....During image processing, engineers usually have to work around the small blemishes caused by imperfections in the camera detectors, but with WFC3, "we can remove almost all of those to very high precision," Sembach said. Once the camera gets to work, you can expect bunches of eye-popping, color-enhanced images that combine ultraviolet, visible-light and infrared data. "One of the real drivers behind this camera, scientifically, was really wanting to understand what's going on in star-forming regions," Sembach explained. ........ The new camera could help Hubble double or triple the rate of discovery for extremely distant supernovae. ........ And when it comes to dimmer objects, COS can do more in two weeks than STIS could do in a year. That opens up whole new vistas in astronomy. Job No. 1 is to chart the ethereal cosmic web that apparently provided the framework for galaxy clusters soon after the universe was born - hence the reference to "Cosmic Origins" in the contraption's name. Learning more about the cosmic web may also tell astronomers more about the mysterious unseen stuff known as dark matter. "That cosmic webbing can't currently be imaged with Hubble or any other observatory up there," Sembach said. ........ But wait ... there's more: COS should be able to track the flow stellar winds and even sample the starlight shining through the atmospheres of alien planets. "For example, you might be able to see whether a planet's atmosphere has hydrogen or carbon or oxygen in it," Sembach said. ........ When it comes to taking pictures of the dusty protoplanetary disks around stars, or even directly imaging planets around other stars, ACS will be the instrument of choice because it has a coronagraph that can block out a star's glare.

I think we can use a science fiction addition to the boards, where enthusiasts can post stories that are extrapolated from modern science knowledge and prospects, with readers offering input and maybe even critique if asked. Who knows, it could turn out wildy popular, and besides -- it might help a solve an issue we tend to have.... Pseudoscience carries a negative aura. It's like the armpit of the science forums, marring a professionally laid-out website, gathering the ridiculous in its stinky corner, and where little of the discussion is expected to be productive. Maybe we can even rename it to "Science Fiction and Wild Guesses" As a side effect, people (usually newcomers) might feel less betrayed by having their posts moved, as the section would actually a neat purpose, rather than being considered a garbage depository.

Echoing iNow, yes, ParanoiA has made a very crucial point. If we're to live most productively in a given system, we must be able to understand the common/major intricacies without spending a lifetime. I think what Mokele's referring to is corporate personhood, the way that a corporation is treated like a single person with associated "rights" (illegitimately at that). Nothing is "free market" about a corporation, they have existed only with special permission from the government. But somewhere along the way, corporates gained the ability to nearly be a single individual. So would you be happy to simply let other entities, groups, hobby clubs, social networks, and online communities become legally viewed as a person with Constitutional rights that our forefathers meant only for individuals to have? What if all groups could avoid legal repurcussions for each of its members, by making the entire group itself a person (and the one taking all the blame...just like a corporation)? Heck -- with the groups' new personhood status, might they eventually gain the ability to run for President and hold office anywhere? Will Corporations gain that ability? Check the link below, you'll find out something about each process that led the corporate entities to their present-day (and undeserved) status. http://www.rachel.org/files/document/POCLAD_Model_Legal_Brief.htm The people of these United States created local, state, and federal governments to protect, secure, and preserve the people's inalienable rights, including their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is axiomatic that the people of these United States -- the source of all governing authority in this nation -- created governments also to secure the people's inalienable right that the many should govern, not the few. That guarantee -- of a republican form of government -- provides the foundation for securing people's other inalienable rights and vindicates the actions of people and communities seeking to secure those rights. Corporations are created by State governments through the chartering process. As such, corporations are subordinate, public entities that cannot usurp the authority that the sovereign people have delegated to the three branches of government. Corporations thus lack the authority to deny people's inalienable rights, including their right to a republican form of government, and public officials lack the authority to empower corporations to deny those rights. Over the past 150 years, the Judiciary has "found" corporations within the people's documents that establish a frame of governance for this nation, including the United States Constitution. In doing so, Courts have illegitimately bestowed upon corporations immense constitutional powers of the Fourteenth, First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the expansive powers afforded by the Contracts and Commerce Clauses. Wielding those constitutional rights and freedoms, corporations regularly and illegitimately deny the people their inalienable rights, including their most fundamental right to a republican form of government. Such denials are beyond the authority of the corporation to exercise. Such denials are also beyond the authority of the Courts, or any other branches of government, to confer. ........... II. Corporations are Created by State Governments as Subordinate, Public Entities Through the Chartering Process, and Thus Cannot Act to Deny People's Rights to Safety, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, or a Republican Form of Government Within this Nation's Frame of Governance. The cause of the American Revolution was the systemic usurpations of the rights of colonists by the English King and Parliament. [13] Those usurpations occurred primarily through the King's empowerment of eighteenth century corporations of global trade -- such as the East India Company -- and through Parliamentary Acts taxing colonial trade. Oft-cited as the final spark of the Revolutionary War, the Boston Tea Party was the direct result of colonial opposition to the East India Company's use of the English government to enable the Company to monopolize the tea market in the colonies. The signing of the Declaration of Independence transformed crown corporations and royal proprietorships into constitutionalized states. Elected State legislators, possessing personal knowledge of the power of English trading corporations, [15] worked to ensure that corporations within the new nation would be controlled and defined exclusively by legislatures. Accordingly, people made certain that legislatures issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and revoking corporate charters. Side by side with control and authority over corporations -- exercised through their elected legislators -- the people experimented with various forms of enterprise and finance. Artisans and mechanics owned and managed diverse businesses; farmers and millers organized profitable cooperatives; shoemakers created unincorporated business associations. [19] Towns routinely promoted agriculture and manufactures. They subsidized farmers, public warehouses, and municipal markets, protected watersheds, and discouraged overplanting. Legislatures also chartered profit-making corporations to build turnpikes, canals, and bridges, declaring that corporations could only be chartered for "public purposes." By the beginning of the 1800's, only some three hundred such charters had been granted. Many people argued that under the Constitution no business could be granted special corporate privileges. Others worried that once incorporators amassed wealth, they would control jobs and markets, buy the newspapers, and dominate elections and the courts. Premised upon the widespread public knowledge of the powers wrought by English corporations and the people's opposition to them, early legislators granted few charters, and only after long, hard debate. Legislators usually denied charters to would-be incorporators when communities opposed the proposed corporation. People shared the belief that granting charters was their exclusive right. Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Virginia reasoned in 1809, if the applicants' object is merely "private" or selfish; if it is detrimental to, or not promotive of, the public good, they have no adequate claim upon the legislature for the privileges.

I'm still of mind to just investigate and don't prosecute. Simply expose all. No threat of what happened to Romans, huh? Below is Mr Skeptic's idea which I also like. Brilliant! At first I was going to suggest Democrats investigate, make open all details to the public, then let Republicans handle it from there. However, it'd be much better to have an independent team investigate, the assignment process made completely transparent, equip the investigators with a high-ranking investigatory powers so no one can hinder them, and open all details/revelations of criminal activities to the public.....then let Republicans handle the assignment of consequences. Or lack thereof. I fully support it. Obama can do this and hardly be accused of political revenge -- if he asked that only Republicans in Congress were given sole authority of how justice shall be dealt...if at all. So what are people's thoughts? It seems pretty clear in how or where it's used. (or by whom ) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan US military: 44 Afghan cases of white phosphorus The U.S. accused Afghan militants Monday of using white phosphorus as a weapon in "reprehensible" attacks on U.S. forces and in civilian areas. ........ The U.S. said militants used white phosphorus in improvised explosive attacks at least seven times since spring 2007, some in civilian areas. . Of course, though, the U.S. were using it for illumination and a smoke screen, where militants seem to use it as weapon only. The militants' use of white phosphorus as a weapon could cause "unnecessary suffering" as defined in the laws of warfare, U.S. spokeswoman Maj. Jenny Willis said.

I used to shrug away the insane nonsense rabid yellings on AM radio, the liberal bashings on 700 Club, many things which I had no inkling were long connected to a national and fabricated ideology, yet confident in "knowing" that few would be idiots enough to buy into such lunacy -- without mentally challenging it. Then Bush happened....and I won't so easily dismiss the "nonsense" again. Study how their propoganda works, attack it from so many different angles it makes their head spin, weaken it by strengthening its enemies: open government, healthy lower to middle class, a strong and free education. It's a habit of the power seekers in religion, carried onto the party they dominate (i.e. have infiltrated).

Fixed. Major difference: the one act wasn't kept hidden from everyone until leaked. (There's no spin in that)

A religion and/or business should be able to incite people however they wish, yet shouldn't be able to bribe government officials (with $$ or tempting promises) into helping nudge the variables and outcome in their favor. Nor should politicians be able to coordinate with them to stay "on message" and going by plan. i.e. the things special interests might do for ill-gotten success or advantage: crafting rumors, echoing glossed political slogans and recited complaints (downloaded on the memo-net), twisting facts. No, if people can't quite distinguish between sensationalized and real, they haven't decided anything. What's news supposed to be like? They might have little clue -- otherwise why do they get angry from believing exaggerations (about the "liberal" media, for instance) if those are "obvious". Sure, but valuable to whom...the customer or the seller? Reality contradicts that. Wikipedia is among the most visited places on the internet. The public tends to crave knowledge and information. They may crave other nonsense, but with news, the draw of sensationalism hinges on trust in what's being presented and lack of perception when being misled. Lots of people feel they need to know more. Actually, you're presenting it backwards. It's what McD's successfully marketed. Again, how could we vote for something that didn't exist until it was marketed to us? One of the body's main survival tools is energy. Which ingredients act the quickest and/or pack the most energy? Fat and sugar. So of course, perhaps our body's evolved to find those most desirable. A survival mechanism drawn towards the purer energies. But other nutrients play a role too. Energy is good for short-term (immediate) survival, yet other nutrients are good for long-term survival. So veggies might not get highest priority in taste (some might beg to differ). The result: important nutrients might be unable to successfully compete against primal urges for quick or abundant energy. Notice too, how foods with the more complex nutrition spoil quicker. That's another factor of why the important nutrients are unable to compete head-on with faster energy: shelf-life costs.

So what? Twice in the entire history of the U.S. was a President impeached. And only the right-wing did it for a stupid occasion. Who cares if a politician lies, has extra-marital cigar breaks, or abuses public funds? They wouldn't be a familiar politican if they didn't, yet we can't expect to impeach on that. But we can expect secretive and deliberate offenses against the Constitution to get a trial date. Those aren't prosecutions, yet still merit investigations -- not targeted at the relevant Presidents, but into the department heads who did the firings, and into the criminal donators. Agreed. Treason has nothing to do with ideology. Or maybe it does. As in....which one is more likely to commit it? And the issues/accusations were far more serious than a blowjob.

Perspective. The Romans didn't have anything near our checks and balances, a legal system of innocent until proven guilty, nor an obsessively complex separation of powers. So there'd be no annual (or four-year) prosecutions. I usually hear that crap from media politicals who'd like to avoid examination of unscrupulous activities. Politicians just can't do what you've said. They're unable to prosecute, and so are the courts...without evidence -- thus the only harm done is to the politicians/accusers who'll end up looking foolish if clearly there's no evidence of wrongdoing. But let's suppose they did find evidence, really bad offenses to the Constitution, wouldn't you say that doing the investigations have merit?

Or an intended strategy of reverse-marketing (the less you know, the better). (I'd view any lack of details on the grander picture with a healthy bit of suspicion)

Hey moral bankruptcy is terrific -- you get to wipe the slate clean and even invest on new morals...with a diverse portfolio of course. But that seven years on the moral credit reports is a killer.

And if I were a lesbian, with open legs... \:-p/

Funny you say that. I was just pondering a related solution earlier. The media has privileged Constitutional rights of freedom. But a Press that's unable or afraid to report on its conglomerate owners/subsidiaries is no longer free. Plus, the amount of people misquoted, and the blatant inaccuracies ("science" reports) means the Press isn't functioning as intended. So maybe require them to print/broadcast any challenges made by victims of distortion from an interview or highlight of events -- unedited. The victim would get space/time alloted for their challenge equal to the length of the relevant bit(s) -- or two minutes/paragraphs (whichever longer). That might put a quick end to playing loose with facts and recount of events/interviews. And the 24-hour news channels have plenty of time availability for it.

Definitely. That's the point, however. The use of stimulus for preparedness has merit, but if one tries enough, the same argument for *precautions* can be stretched to fit lots of things. It doesn't mean Obama did wrong, it's just he might've done better the open way. Though you have a point about the time critical situation: he might've just acted the way a leader's supposed to, take charge and field questions as you go -- without pulling the neoconic stall-n'-forget maneuver: "we can discuss this later, after the crises" -- knowing full well that'd never happen. (i.e. Katrina response). A leader in our nation is expected to be accountable. Yet let's be careful on giving such leverage -- to anyone. Remember how Bush/Rove/neocons liked to masquerade deceptively worded and hurried policies as *taking charge*.

I agree with Pangloss, there should've been openness and debate. As it sets good precedent. And yes, even if they feared Republicans would make a big stink about it, even if Dems were right afterwards. Obama just happened to get lucky....unless the pandemic doesn't occur.

I predict the science boards won't have much of a problem with that...(i.e. go freakin apeshit )

Thanks JohnB for caring about our nation enough to dedicate all the time/effort you've put into your research and writing it here.