Critical Section

Archive: February 5, 2003

<<< February 3, 2003


February 6, 2003 >>>

Wednesday,  02/05/03  07:26 PM

Hmmm...  technical trouble kept this post in jail on my PC, it couldn't escape to the server.  Yippee, it's free.

So - my reaction to Colin Powell's speech before the U.N.:  It was solid evidence that the Iraqis are not complying with terms of U.N. Resolution 1441.  It was not solid evidence they're making WMDs, or that they have them.  So it is a narrower smoking gun than many have wished for.  It justifies further U.N. action, since it shows the U.N. resolution was violated, but it doesn't [by itself] justify U.S. military action.  Bush must have other evidence that Iraq is making and/or has WMDs that he isn't willing to share yet - we're pretty far along the path of war.  The reaction of the U.N. delegates was predictable - "oh, so Saddam is not complying with our resolution, let's send in more inspectors".  I think we aren't going to get a second U.N. resolution sanctioning military action - France would veto, among other things - but that won't stop us...

Columbia wing seen from insideHave you seen this picture?  This is a frame from an Israeli TV program called "Erev Hadash" taken on January 20.  Astronaut Ilan Ramon spoke with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon through a video link. He presented his view out the window of the Columbia shuttle.  Right there on the surface of the wing you can see a long crack and a dent.  Eleven days later, it was that same wing that broke off during reentry, causing the shuttle to disintegrate.  Even if NASA knew about the damage from the moment it happened, they could have done nothing.  Gene Kranz, the flight director who orchestrated the rescue of astronauts aboard the crippled Apollo 13 in 1970 ("Failure Is Not An Option"), said that from what he knew, there was nothing that could have been done to save the flight.  "The options," he said in a telephone interview, "were just nonexistent".

I love it when old media reviews the blogosphere.  They never get it right.  Kind of like the way TV reviewed "The World Wide Web" [say it in a deep voice] in 1996.  Ask yourself this: why is it that whenever the media do a story about something you really know, they get it wrong?

Guess what?  They've explained hiccups.  Thanks goodness for science!


Return to the archive.

this date in:
About Me

Greatest Hits
Correlation vs. Causality
The Tyranny of Email
Unnatural Selection
On Blame
Try, or Try Not
Books and Wine
Emergent Properties
God and Beauty
Moving Mount Fuji
The Nest
Rock 'n Roll
IQ and Populations
Are You a Bright?
Adding Value
The Joy of Craftsmanship
The Emperor's New Code
Toy Story
The Return of the King
Religion vs IQ
In the Wet
solving bongard problems
visiting Titan
unintelligent design
the nuclear option
estimating in meatspace
second gear
On the Persistence of Bad Design...
Texas chili cookoff
almost famous design and stochastic debugging
may I take your order?
universal healthcare
triple double
New Yorker covers
Death Rider! (da da dum)
how did I get here (Mt.Whitney)?
the Law of Significance
Holiday Inn
Daniel Jacoby's photographs
the first bird
Gödel Escher Bach: Birthday Cantatatata
Father's Day (in pictures)
your cat for my car
Jobsnotes of note
world population map
no joy in Baker
vote smart
exact nonsense
introducing eyesFinder
to space
where are the desktop apps?
still the first bird
electoral fail
progress ratches
2020 explained