That's an interesting point - it's tough to imagine the economy of scale whereby human spaceflight is cheaper than another satellite. More fuel needed for the human to go the same distance due to time/mass, and then you'll have more spent on the return trip. That fuel cost would have to be less than the material cost of the original satellite for this to make sense.
Sending a robotic ship to place a new satellite, collect the old one, and return to wherever the nearest human base is would be much more efficient, I suspect.
I'm pretty sure that they have the main writer of Episode V and VI on staff, so I don't think that writing will be much of an issue.
The world's first nuclear reactor was created in Chicago, under the bleachers of the stadium at UC. It was thought at the time that the world could actually end as a result.
It's important to understand that the primary determinant of the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is temperature, which means that other GHG gases impact the amount of water vapour and thus amplify their own effect. That's why water vapour doesn't get much consideration: it has a short cycle, it acts primarily as a feedback system, and have no feasible ways to directly increase or decrease it, unlike the other GHGs like CO2 and methane.
It should be named anthropogenically accelerated global climate change, as there is no question whether the climate is changing---one cannot expect that the actual climate will last forever, it has changed before and will change again. The question is whether climate change is (a) global, (b) faster than it would be natural, and therefore (c) caused by the man.
I guess, they should have named it anthropogenically inverted global climate change, then. The natural trend is about -0.03C degrees C per century, when you add in the anthropogenic impact the current trend is around +2.00 degrees C per century.
You see, if you frame it right, it does sound JUST LIKE RELIGION!
If you frame it right, everything sounds like religion.
The question is for programming, but the blog discusses AP CS. There are differences there, which are fairly important.
If one were to teach another to program, then I'd stick with a language that is closer to English. This is a reason why PASCAL or BASIC was used - they are a lot more verbose in nature than C, Java, etc. I think Python should qualify as well, because you do want to impress upon the learner the importance of formatting.
For CS concepts, it might be better to start with a language that's closer to the concepts in CS. For this purpose, I'd say Logo. There's a direct feedback in Logo, and it starts really simple. I learned it in junior high school. From there, you can get crazier into the functional programming world and migrate to scheme or full blown lisp, which then translates rather well to automata, grammars, languages, etc.
"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre