For months, I’ve been receiving spam emails falling into a particular pattern. I might get a dozen a day. The identified sender is a female first name and the subject line is about arranging a meeting one way or another. There are generally about three variations on the basic text.
But, in the five or so emails I have gotten just this morning, the identified sender is a male first name.
This, of course, indicates that all the emails are coming from a single source. Thus, it should be relatively easy for President Trump to have that source terminated. Wouldn’t it be awesome if the emails stopped and shortly thereafter I received an email from the president with a photo of seal team six posing with the body of the spammer?
There could be no better way for the president to guarantee his reelection.
This whole episode has set of my BS detector. Something does not feel right. People are using words to describe things that do not correspond with the conclusions they expect us to draw.
Recall that McCain is damaged and 10 sailors were killed on it. My guess is that a thoughtful staffer was concerned about Trump making an appearance with a mass death scene in the background. The description of the request that the ship be “out of sight” seems more consistent with this motivation than with Trump pettiness.
The tarp over the McCain name shown in media photos had already been on the ship due to the repair work. Snopes reports:
One of those officials reportedly clarified that a tarp used on the ship, which temporarily covered the vessel’s name, had been placed there as part of ongoing maintenance rather than specifically for the purpose of keeping the McCain family name out of view for Trump’s visit, and that the tarp had been removed before Trump’s speech.
Combining fragmentary info on the request with fragmentary info on the tarp (omitting its pre-existence), and given the media’s anti-Trump narrative, someone (including Mick Mulvaney) could erroneously reconstruct a White House request to hide the name McCain.
SpaceX lost out on an Air Force Launch Services Agreement (LSA) to three competitors: ULA; Blue Origin; and Northrop Grumman. Each of the other three got contracts. SpaceX unsuccessfully protested administratively and recently filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims.
Some source files on the SpaceX complaint are given below.
It’s hard to write anything detailed because we do not have access to the Air Force decision document, although SpaceX makes several references to errors in it.
I was reasonably familiar with what went on in Boeing’s protest of the Air Force KC-X contract. After that fiasco, one would think that the Air Force would not screw things up.
This is much different from the KC-X competition in that KC-X involved a limited number of very objective criteria/standards and parameters of actual aircraft that those standards could be applied to.
The LSA award involves a large number of fairly nebulous criteria and highly subjective speculation about meeting them.
In general, SpaceX’s complaint is well written and persuasive. Some of the Air Force decision logic is clearly bizarre.
One example of strangeness relates to the fact that the three winners are to be whittled down to two in Phase 2. Blue Origin has certain overlapping technologies with the other two winners. ULA is using a Blue Origin first stage engine and Blue Origin is using Northrop Grumman boosters. Thus, if Blue Origin moves on to Phase 2, it will be sharing a very significant source of project risk with the other winner. Thus, the program loses a key aspect of the redundancy and fault tolerance of having two providers.
Another example involves the Air Force being skeptical of SpaceX’s horizontal vehicle integration (assembling the rocket horizontally and then uprighting it for launch). But the Air Force counts this twice against SpaceX. First, they count horizontal integration as a program risk, then in the financial analysis they include the cost of adding vertical integration to SpaceX’s proposal which would moot the program risk.
Either SpaceX will win or I have another chapter in my book ”Everything I learned in Law School has been crapped upon by the last 20 years”.
Shortly after liftoff, the value of the left angle of attack sensor deviated from the right one and reached 74.5 degrees while the right angle of attack sensor value was 15.3 degrees; then after; the stick shaker activated and remained active until near the end of the flight.
Also, the airspeed, altitude and flight director pitch bar values from the left side noted deviating from the corresponding right side values. The left side values were lower than the right side values until near the end of the recording.
Maintenance actions of relevance occurred in early December 2018 and involved several write-ups involving temporary erratic airspeed and altitude fluctuations as well as a report of the aircraft rolling during autopilot operation and altitude and vertical speed indication on the PFD showed an erratic and exaggerated indication. Maintenance actions were performed and none were reported to have reoccurred.
Interestingly there is a count for aiding and abetting employment discrimination under NY Labor Law § 201–d. This begs the question of whether he also sues Blaze TV in NY for that employment discrimination.
Another question is whether he could have included some form of unjust enrichment claim against SPLC.
The first significant incident in the crew’s mission came in August when astronauts detected an air leak in their Soyuz spacecraft, which was docked to the orbiting space laboratory.
They sealed the small hole successfully but Russia launched an investigation and its space chief Dmitry Rogozin suggested it could have been deliberate sabotage carried out in space.
Rogozin said that investigators ruled out the possibility the defect was introduced during the spacecraft’s manufacture.
Prokopyev and fellow Russian Oleg Kononenko last week carried out a gruelling space walk lasting almost eight hours to locate the hole from the outside and record and bag evidence.
The hole was in a section of the astronauts’ spacecraft that was to fall away and burn up in the atmosphere as they landed, hence the need to carry out the probe in space.
During the space walk, Kononenko said there was some kind of black and yellow “furry” deposit that looked like a “spider” around the hole, but no conclusion has been made public.
Prokopyev brought back the evidence to Earth and will hand it to the FSB security service which will carry out laboratory analysis, TASS state news agency reported citing a source.
On the one hand, they can have a fairly effective space agency. On the other hand, its head can appear to be a Sacha Baron Cohen parody who is probably trying to figure out how a Jew sneaked aboard the ISS.
It has the most severe and repeated instances of CTLaw’s rules of Hollywood anachronism that I have ever seen: in period films, Hollywood shows things as preserved versions of those things appear today.
In this film all of the Gemini and Apollo capsules and much of the other hardware is heavily patinaed as if they photographed those in the National Air and Space Museum and duplicated them including 50+ years of wear, decay, and dirt.
The rules work two ways. Certain things like the capsules in this film look much worse than they should. Others look much better.
Most things fall into the first category. The main example is buildings. If you watch a western many of the buildings appear old. This is despite the fact that the Wild West period only lasted about 15 years. Building interiors are a key thing to notice for more recent films. For example, a World War II movie may show a room in the just-built Pentagon appearing to have about 15 coats of paint on the walls. Another is concrete. Concrete is often shown heavily weathered, perhaps even covered with moss and lichen even in films where it would still have been curing at the time. Consider any film about the Normandy invasion. German fortifications would have been about a year old but are usually shown heavily weathered and worn.
Firearms and military equipment work in the same direction. Fresh troops in World War II will be shown receiving a hodgepodge of rifles with their stocks showing decades of wear and oil and the parkerising unevenly worn from the metal. As with the space capsules, combat aircraft which should be only a few weeks out of the factory reflect decades of use.
It was one thing when a WW II film made in the 1960s had to use 20-year-old equipment without special effects. It’s another thing when a 21st-century film uses CGI and nonsensically replicates 70 years of decay.
The main example of things that look better on screen than they should is automobiles. Few people preserve working automobiles in conditions of disrepair. In a film set in 1970 New York City, a 1967 car should be moderately rusted and a 1963 car should be heavily rusted. Instead all will look like they just came from a modern classic car show.
Does anyone have further examples?
A somewhat related situation occurs with the physical appearance of actors. due to weight training, plastic surgery, and pharmaceutical enhancement, actors look nothing like people did more than 30 years ago.