That sounds like anti-conformism for anti-conformisms sake. There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, the problem is with assuming the authority is wrong just because they're an authority. There are a ton of mathematical proofs I don't understand but I blindly accept because I understand the mathematicians don't have a motive to mislead me. And even when something catches my eye and I do decide to question I'll do so aggressively but that doesn't mean I stop believing it. Whatever happens you've got to believe something, if you don't believe the authority then what do you believe?

Similarly with AGW, I can read a blog or skim a paper as well as anybody, but I can't understand the entirety of climate research. I can however understand the researchers and the scientific institutions and not every force pushes them in the direction of the truth. But given what I understand of the science and the scientists I can't think of a group who would be closer to the truth than them.

What about the multiverse? :)

I disagree about the 'narrative science' idea because I think that oversimplifies the topic. The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe, you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.

The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations. If you make a theory explaining observation X about the atmosphere that has implications for the rest of the atmosphere, so you gain repeatability by testing your theory against these other parts of the atmosphere. Same thing for the universe, the big bang theory doesn't just say the universe stated and is expanding outwards, it explains countless other things about the universe. The background radiation we see that's consistent with the big bang is an example of the big bang theory being "repeated".

That sounds a lot like Ken Ham's distinction of observational vs historical science.

How do you actually test that cigarettes cause cancer? A big observational study? Well maybe people smoke because they're stressed or not health conscious, and they have a natural per-disposition to lung cancer. Build it from theory? Sure the smoke causes these problems in the lungs that we would expect to cause cancer, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're causing the cancer.

Now how do we test the Big Bang theory? A big observational study? We can see things that look a lot like after effects of what a big bang would look like, but maybe we're misidentifying them. Theory? There's a lot of theory about the universe that suggests a big bang, but that could be a mistake.

Clearly the cigarette cancer link is a lot easier to demonstrate than the big bang theory, or AGW, but they're not really alternative types of science. At the end of the day all of science is a mixture of observe X, where X is either a constructed experiment or a data set collected from the universe, and develop a theory Y, where Y has to explain X and all the previous observations we've made.

Putting a bunch of cigarette smoke into a lung and expecting it to develop cancer requires "faith" in the same way that putting a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere and expecting it to develop warming does. The latter problem is a harder one no doubt, but it follows the same approach of incremental collection of data and development of theories to explain that data.

Right now, most of all the western electronics come from China. As such, it makes it trivial for the CHinese gov. to do whatever they like.
It is long past time for these western companies to bring back production.
At the same time, they need to OSS the firmware so that others will feel comfortable with buying these, knowing that they can get true secured systems.

And for the Chinese gov. who almost certainly knew about it.

And yet, this is made in China, by chinese ownership, without other companies knowing about it.
Are you really claiming that Chinese gov. is helping NSA spy?
Not bloody likely.

We really do not have that option.
The problem in America is that we USED to have 3rd parties that at least put pressures on the pubs/dems to keep them moderates.
However, when Poppa Bush lost due to Perot, the GOP announced that they would no longer allow 3rd parties to debate, and they would no longer use the league of women voters. Sadly, the fucking dems went along with the fascists.
So, now America has either idiots with the dems, or fascists with the gop.

LOL. under dem presidents, deficits always drop, since Johnson. OTOH, every GOP (republicans and neo-cons alike) president starting with nixon, has caused massive deficits that increase every year.

Apparently, you neo-cons/tea* are not capable of math or facts.

Actually, we are getting ready to buy a tesla, and we have solar solar city. We will use the SC to run the house and charge the car. When the net drops, not an issue. It makes for a wonderful back-up generator.

Actually, that was the CA solution. And then the texans, found out how to do texas-style accounting, and manipulation of the markets.

Look, these MBA's always chase the sure short-term dollar for a tactical idea, that leaves them with plenty of money, while disregarding long-term strategies.
AE is a utilities best friend. Instead, utilities should be pushing to have a clean separation of power vs. grid. In addition, they themselves should focus on storing the energy and selling it back.
Finally, if these utilities Executives had HALF a brain, they would realize that electric cars are about to come and they can make a killing on these since the majority will charge at night. As such, they can drop the expensive on-demand systems, and focus on lowering their costs to generation.

I know the water is fine, but if I lived in Portland and they hadn't emptied the reservoir I would have been looking at the tap water a little more suspiciously, and if I was someone who sometimes bought bottled water I probably would have been a little more likely to buy some. I have no doubt many of you are the same.

Someone peeing in the tap water is icky, it doesn't matter if it's irrational, we are irrational, and as costs of irrationality goes emptying a single reservoir is pretty damn cheap. There's times to stand on scientific principal, this isn't one of them. There's no point in grossing out an entire city, reducing confidence in the municipal water supply, and impacting human health and the environment by pushing people towards bottled drinks, just because it's irrational. Sometimes the most rational thing you can do is accommodate your irrationality.

Hmmm. Just found the answer. it is landing 200 KM east, and 500 KM south, which would make it the blake plateau. I do have to say that while the blake is relatively shallow (500 M), I do not think that we have old rigs there. The rigs that are off the florida shore were done in the 60-80 and I believe remained on the shelf, which stops at around 100 KM.

And you are correct. If they have to reverse the direction, then it might be better to come back to land.

OTOH, once texas is a launch site, it might make a lot of sense to use the old rigs in the gulf. Plenty of them.

Normally, I scream about the neo-cons/tea*. BUT, to be fair, it is the house republican party that is causing the issues. Interestingly, the tea* speaks for private space, but they continue to support the SLS and taking money from private space.

And Dana, Like Dr. Griffin, has done wonders for private space. He would be a strong supporter of it even if it was not in his district.

And Giffords, along with the dem from Maryland that pushes the NGT, Have been the only 2 dems that have been hostile towards private space. In general, dems have supported BOTH SLS and Private space. Now, to be honest, I view the neo-cons/tea* as being the worst approach for trying to kill off private space, BUT, the dems are just wasting money and are gutless wonders. Make no mistake. Just because I speak out against neo-cons/tea*, does not mean that I support the idiot dems.

And sald, private spaceflight is our best way to not only drop the price of cost to space, but also to turn space into a money maker. That is why I continue to push for federal support of Bigelow Aerospace. They can build a space station in LEO with say 6-8 ppl on-board (ideally, NASA will have 2 ppl on it), and then land a base on the moon by 2020. I have NO DOUBT that if we have a base on the moon in which just about any nation will be allowed there, then private space will make a tonne of money. Just about every nation will want to spend the 50-100 million to put one of their own on the moon for say 2-4 months.

I had not thought about it, but you are right. Dragon is really at the same place that the first flight of the shuttle was. Yeah, some changes have to be made, but nothing major. Great point. Glad somebody modded you up
Now, if the house pubs would quit spending billions on the Russians and would instead support American businesses, SpaceX could be not just ready in under 6 months, but the safest craft to have ever launched.