Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe


Special Features


LOL, the Study for a United States Space Force was commenced in 2008 at the directive of the Obama Administration and the USAF has been studying it ever since:

*edited for length*


*circle circle circle*
*flap flap flap*

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-18 04:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

You might want to actually read your sources before you try to insult others.

First - the 2008 Independent Assessment Panel on the Organization and Management of National Security Space, commissioned by Congress in the FY2007 NDAA, did not recommend a "Space Force". They did recommend a consolidation of some of the current activities associated with space, including the NRO and Air Force Space and Missile Command, under a single organization, with a single leader. They also recommended the establishment of a national strategy, to include activities of NASA as well as the DoD. In fact, they recommend the "organize, train, and equip" function should fall to Air Force Space Command. See the report here. I'm sure there is more there, but I didn't take the time to read the whole report. You don't seem to have read it at all, though.

Second - the paper you cite is a Master's Thesis by a Lt Col for Joint Forces Staff College, which is "Senior Developmental Education" for military officers. It isn't a commissioned study or official policy or recommendation by the DoD. It is that one Lt Col's Masters Thesis. There are hundreds of these types of papers out there on DTIC, but they are no more official policy than any other Master's thesis from and post-graduate institution. He was probably a quality officer to have been selected for that school, but it was still just his own opinion. (Yup, he's a smart guy - here's his Bio ) I didn't read his whole thesis either, as interesting as it may be. You seem to have only read the abstract and not understood what type of document you were reading. This isn't evidence of some continuous study of establishing a separate "Space Force".

Third - the idea of a "Space Force" has come and gone many times in the past, at least since the early 90's. It has yet to receive any official recommendation to be established. I think there is more likelihood of a separate "Cyber Force" being recommended or established than a "Space Force", but that's just my opinion.

#7 - What's so nice about it is you, and I assume he, don't confuse things by using the generic "Observer effect" wording, but go right to how an instrument effects a change. It's that simple next step that clarifies. Otherwise a student is left with "instruments" "analysis" and "observing" - and coming up with "how in the world would something I do every day mess up just seeing?"

On a more macroscopic level, sometimes I just pause in the kitchen and watch a dust particle drift into the beam of LED light (counter pendants) and take off downward in a blaze of speed.

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2018-06-17 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The dust movement there is most likely caused by air currents set up by the lights. The light pressure from lights like that is unlikely to be observable on something as large as a dust particle. More likely, the heat from the lights has set up a convection cell near the lights, or something else has set up some kind of air current there - AC/heat, change in the shape of the ceiling or walls, or something.

There is enough of it in space to matter, though. One of the proposed methods of space travel is with a "light sail". It had to be accounted for in calculating trajectories for long distance space probes as well. See this article for some information: Radiation Pressure (Wikipedia)

I am unable to read the article itself - Forbes doesn't seem to like me - but the statement that, for example, supersymmetry doesn't have any evidence for it isn't really correct. There is support for it, as it explains some things the standard model has difficulty with. At the same time, the discovery of the Higgs Boson has placed some strain on supersymmetry because it is fairly heavy for the model. Overall, I would class supersymmetry as still only a hypothesis, but I'm not really in the particle physics world. There are other hypothesis out there, but they aren't as able to explain as many of the disconnects with the standard model.

#1 - about QM telling us "weird" is the answer: I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "beauty". QM is "beautiful" in its mathematics as well. The weirdness of QM is a directly predicted by the simple mathematics. Almost all of QM falls out of group theory with a few basic assumptions. That relationship wasn't necessarily what started the theory, but that is how it is expressed today. I remember finding it much easier to follow QM once I was taught "bra-ket" notation, as it made the connection with group theory and algebras much easier to grasp. Then again, I had courses in, and really enjoyed, abstract algebra and other abstract mathematics.

lMaking up crap out of whole cloth like you always do you useless GOP Hack.


Take it up with Washington Post, bitch.

I provided a source in #88.

I can tell it's a thread critical of Obama - you normally don't try and argue against established facts. But anything even remotely critical of your God causes you to go -------.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-05 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you actually read the Washington Post article? It doesn't say anything about the Bush administration warning anybody. It talks about Obama officials arguing internally about the financial health of Solyndra. It mentions some VCs warning about potential problems with the finances, and recommends Obama not visit the factory because if it fails, it would look bad politically. However, none of the folks quoted or mentioned in that article were Bush administration officials and definitely not warning against giving the loan. It doesn't even really address the awarding of the loan in the first place.

The summary of the discussion from that article is this: "But the e-mails capture the vigorous debate within the Obama White House about whether the solar-panel manufacturer was a smart bet. They also highlight the angst inside the West Wing about whether the president's initiative to support clean energy was ill-equipped to pick winners, or could, as some hoped, help validate Obama's use of $80 billion in stimulus to build a clean-energy industry." (from the Washington Post article you cited in #88

If you want to support your point of the Bush administration warning Obama not to give the loan to Solyndra, you'll have to find a different source.

Since it was much talked about previously when the unemployment numbers changed, I thought I'd leave the link to the labor participation rate statistics:

Playing with the years was instructive. The labor participation rates have been dropping since around 2000, but there is a significant change in the slope around 2009-2010, when we had coincident bad economy and the first of the baby boomers reaching 65. The participation rate has essentially leveled off just below 63% since 2014, as the first of the baby boomers approached 70. Interestingly, the labor participation rate was below 63% from the start of the statistics in 1948 through 1978. It looks like the participation rate started a long increase starting about 1964-1965 through 2000, with the steepest increase around the time of "stagflation" in the late '70s. 1964-65 would be when the first of the boomers turned 18. Prior to that, the participation rate bounced around 59%, +/- 1%.

Pure speculation, but I'd guess that the increase was in large part due to women joining the work force at the same time the boomers were reaching working age. The steep increases in the late 70's and again in the late 80's were indicative of the 2-family income becoming the norm, and older workers staying in the workforce longer.

I found this paper: "Trends in Retirement Age in the United States, 1955-1993, by Sex and Race" that seems to indicate the average retirement age was declining into the 90's, but the rate of change started to level off in the 80's. I don't know how much of that was influenced by the raising of the full retirement age in Social Security and how much was due to economic reasons. Anyway, this is getting far longer than I intended. Back to your argument about who gets credit.

#13 That was an extremely hard article to parse. It makes a distinction between "homicides" and "murders"? ...

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-04-27 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't read the article, but there is a legal distinction between the two. (from FindLaw):
"Homicide Definition

To begin with, not all homicides are crimes. Homicides include all killings of humans. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime."

Homicide simply means the taking of a human life through an act or omission. In fact, a suicide can be considered a homicide and, in some jurisdictions, is a criminal homicide. Depending on how the reporting is done, if the distinction weren't made, the comparison would be incorrect.

I haven't gone through this exercise yet, but I had suspected the large change in withholding might be too large. I found this on the IRS site: Withholding Calculator

I'm no expert, but I would hope this calculator would actually do the correct math as it asks about numbers of children, etc.

Danforth, maybe you could check it to see if it looks reasonably correct.

This study seems highly suspect. To add support to the issues Syco pointed out, let's not forget the story posted here not too long ago about the 14-year-old boy shot at when he knocked on a door asking for directions to school. That person claimed he was defending his home against a burglary, too, even though that assumption made little sense with the facts.

I'm going to make the wildly unsupported assumption that a large fraction of the reported "defensive gun uses" were similar - someone felt frightened, pulled a gun, and terrified some poor individual who had no ill intent. Alternatively, the individual may have deliberately escalated a situation and pulled a gun when the target of the aggression responded with aggression.

Overall, this study just looks poorly executed, which is probably why it was never published.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable