Friday, January 30, 2004

To The Moon On Their Own

TransOrbital, Inc. is going to the moon. Not with humans on board, yet, but they are going.  According to the Space.com article, the company plans to launch late this year, from Russia, and, for a mere $2,500.00 per gram, you can have TransOrbital carry along something of your own for the ride and have it left on the lunar surface.  I wonder what NASA’s cost per gram lifted into orbit is?  Prior to depositing your contributions on the surface of the moon, TransOrbitals craft will orbit the moon for approximately three months sending back high res photos and HDTV-quality video.

The total mission cost, is a mere $20 million.

As Transorbital Inc.’s website states “The moon is open for business."

Excellent.

Link via Brian Doherty at Hit & Run.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/30 at 12:35 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

In The News

Shonk, over at Selling Waves, has been reading G.K. Chesterson’s The Ball and the Cross, and, ties a quote from said book, to a post by fellow contributor Curt, and then expands on that thought. The thought deals with what is in the news and objective reporting of the news.  Shonk’s conclusion.

"So what’s the solution? Well, to be honest, I’m not sure there is one, but it might be a good start to acknowledge that “journalistic objectivity” is not merely an unattainable goal, but actually a very harmful and oxymoronic conceit."

I gave up watching the teevee news about five years ago, encouraged by a friend to take a two week fast from the idoicies that beam into my living room, that continues to this day.  I still get a daily newspaper, but its value is mostly as a feed for local happenings.  I receive my news from the internet.  Granted, the content on the internet is basically the same as the content in dead tree print or moving pictures, but, at least I do not have to listen to some “news” reader’s tonal inflections, accompanied by a treacly smile, of approval or disapproval of what is being read.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/30 at 05:38 AM
(6) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Davos Babble

I didn’t really pay any attention to the goings on at Davos when it was recently in the news.  I quickly scanned a few posts at various blogs.  Instapundit linked to a few comments and articles, one dealing with some praise for Clinton’s babbling, one dealing with anti-Americanism, an article by Thomas Friedman on the beef served, some comments by Virginia Postrel dealing with anti-Semitism at Davos, and a reader’s comments expressing being disturbed at a defaced American flag.  Ho, hum stuff.

Last night though, when I stopped by The Rule of Reason, I read this article by Skip Oliva. The headline for Skip’s article is "Who Will Lead the War on Altruism?," and the catalyst for the article was the following comment, uttered by a Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, as reported by Jay Nordlinger at NRO.

"She says that “the fundamental objective” of her company — the fundamental objective, mind you! — is not “to make money” but “to do good,” “to be a good international citizen.” When she says “make money,” she makes it sound so dirty. She borrows the old Quaker business about not just doing well but doing good."

Let that sink in for a moment.  Ponder the sheer imbecility of that statement.  If you are a stockholder in HP, consider calling your broker and selling all your shares, now, before you are dragged down in the abyss of dogooderism.  Exercise your rights as a stockholder and owner and get Fiorina fired, because, based on that statement, Fiorina has been unmasked.  Fiorina is not a businessperson, diligently working to maximize profits so you can earn dividends and build equity, she is simply wearing a business costume.  If Fiorina truly thinks HP’s fundamental objective is “to do good,” you are losing money already.  She is not a buisnessperson, she is a puppet, dancing on the strings of the government.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/30 at 04:47 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tell Me Something I Don't Know

Via Drudge, we are pointed to a Washington Post article titled “Hill Probers Fault Iraq Intelligence." Though the White House, apparently, still isn’t willing to acknowledge this publicly, as this statement from Condie Rice illustrates.

"Asked whether the intelligence was wrong, Rice demurred: “I don’t think . . . that we know the full story of what became of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.” Hussein, she added, “concealed hundreds of weapons-related activities and programs from the United Nations."

I don’t know about you, but I expect more from Condie Rice.  She’s intelligent.

Supposedly the lawmakers who “unearthed” these intelligence failures were surprised. Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) likend it to a "runaway train" of failures.

Are we supposed to take this seriously?  Are we supposed to “believe” that just now, these intelligence failures are being “unearthed?” That lawmakers are just now figuring this out?Statements and articles such as these are simply a reflection of lawmakers’ disregard for individuals who can think.  It’s like they believe they are feeding a child sitting in a high chair strained peas.  Open wide, here comes airplane.  Mmm, isn’t that good?

Posted by John Venlet on 01/30 at 04:14 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages