Lol! Judge Tosses Trump's Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.Posted By Rod Kaufman |
Huh,?! Rich's' response was somehow "funny"? What cons find funny is underwhelming...except, apparently, in Greg's nose.Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer
Damn....I got coffee in my nose LOL
Lol! Judge Tosses Trump's Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton, James Comey, FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.Posted By Rod Kaufman |
Trump's Probability Of Being IndictedPosted By Rod Kaufman |
AST Spacemobile Bluewalker 3 satellitesPosted By Rod Kaufman |
If it's as bad as they say it is, we're screwed. But the masses gotta keep up with the Kardashians, MAGA has to be Tucker's suckers, and Marjorie Traitor Greene has gotta tweet. What could be more important than that?....Originally Posted by Jim MoscheckI was able to read the first paragraph or so before I hit the paywall. Figures just when I'm looking forward to to some more frequent observing opportunities this will happen. I assume it'll be in geosynchronous orbit so it'll wreck the night sky for good?? Finally folks will be able to post pics while on their wilderness hikes so their followers can "like" them and they can keep up with their twitter feeds. Buh bye dark skies cause you know the internet is important. The masses will never look up at the night sky to experience for themselves anyways. They can just call up a picture of most any DSO instantly so why does it matter?
AST Spacemobile Bluewalker 3 satellitesPosted By Rod Kaufman |
The (major) problem(s) here are multifold: 1. The company that produces the satellite in question does not appear as being referenced as taking any actions to mitigate the illumination effects of its satellite, unlike Musk and starlink. 2. Calling on amateurs and astronomers to measure the amount of illumination may be important but it doesn't mitigate the brightness of the satellite in any manner, of course, so the damage is already done once these things get deployed...Originally Posted by James Brown
This is going into low earth orbit, like the Starlink satellites. If it were in geosynchronous orbit (Like HughesNet) , the delay becomes bad for internet communication.
Starlink blackened their very small satellites in response to astronomer and sky-watcher push back. Since they are low earth orbit, you see them best at dusk and dawn, and they are not illuminated at all in the middle of the night.
These articles have no paywall and indicate that astronomers around the world are concerned about these big jobs, and will be taking measurements. Hopefully the communications companies are able to engineer a solution that is not as bright as Venus...
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/as-bluewalker-satellites-join-a-brightening-sky-heres-how-you-can-help/
https://gizmodo.com/spacex-bluewalker-3-falcon-9-1849519022
Jim
AST Spacemobile Bluewalker 3 satellitesPosted By Rod Kaufman |
AST Spacemobile Bluewalker 3 satellitesPosted By Rod Kaufman |
Less than 50% Can Name The 3 Branches Of US GovernmentPosted By Rod Kaufman |
What was he thinking?Posted By Rod Kaufman |
What was he thinking?Posted By Rod Kaufman |
"the "ban," "includes exceptions for rape, incest and pregnancies that threaten maternal health." So, assuming that is correct, 2nd trimester abortions would be OK in instances of maternal health. Not just the life of the mother, but maternal health. So at first glance, this statute is not unlike codifying Roe."Originally Posted by James Brown
Hi all:
I want to play a bit of the contrarian here - although I agree that Graham's proposal is tone deaf.
According to the article, the "ban" would be at 15 weeks. That is approximately at the end of the first trimester. Also, according to the article, the "ban," "includes exceptions for rape, incest and pregnancies that threaten maternal health." So, assuming that is correct, 2nd trimester abortions would be OK in instances of maternal health. Not just the life of the mother, but maternal health. So at first glance, this statute is not unlike codifying Roe.
Politico spins this as a ban. Was Roe a ban? Would you or other Democrats support the national codification of Roe v. Wade? I think a lot would, but any discussion is peremptorily snuffed out by casting this as a ban. You'll recall that Murkowski and Collins tried to introduce legislation codifying Roe some time ago, when Roe was still in effect. They were shot down by Democrats if I remember correctly. So, who is driving the wedge here? (nod to James L.). I could argue that it is Politico and the Democrats who reflexively shoot down a proposal that might be acceptable to most people, maybe if tweaked a bit.
Frankly, the bluest states want this issue controlled at the state level too, so they can legislate extremely liberal abortion laws that do not have much national support at all.
Lastly, Roe-vember? I have not heard that and I still think the economy is the issue. The day before yesterday's inflation news was really bad for Biden and the country. Sure, Roe may motivate blue state activists, but I'm not seeing it as a big issue myself. Just guessing of course, we'll see soon enough. Jim
