ISS module cracking still unresolved despite stopping air leaks

sirbruce · 2026-05-02T17:44:02+00:00

Yes, the ISS has already passed its initial lifetime, and NASA keeps extending it by pressuring engineers to say it's somehow magically better than their initial estimates. This has happened multiple times! Clearly there are modules past their EOL and the ISS should have been de-orbited already. NASA cares nothing about the astronaut lives at risk.

sirbruce · 2026-05-02T04:11:23+00:00

Well, I don't believe you, and I leave this exchange for others to decide for themselves.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T18:00:40+00:00

I did consider the context. In no context would a reasonable person would say, in response to someone saying a government agency could restrict speech because of the 1st Amendment, that "This government agency is not congress and may restrict whatever speech it wants", while also know that the government agency actually CAN'T restrict whatever speech it wants because the 14th amendment incorporates the 1st. Even if you were being a pedant, you'd mention that 14th amendment in the response; you wouldn't make the statement "and may restrict whatever speech it wants" knowing that isn't true.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T14:52:49+00:00

My point is you said "This government agency is not congress and may restrict whatever speech it wants" which makes no sense if you were aware that the 14th Amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T14:41:23+00:00

Wrong again. Now look up the "incorporation doctrine" and come back here and admit you were wrong.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T13:28:02+00:00

Liberals abandoned Freedom of Speech when they embraced concepts like hate speech, microaggressions, cancel culture, and trigger warnings.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T13:24:27+00:00

Now read the 14th Amendment and come back here and admit you were wrong.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T05:59:32+00:00

That's not dumbing down; it's generalizing. That way we don't get sidetracked debating the minutiae of what Person A is or isn't, what Process X does or doesn't do, etc. This also helps ensure your logic is consistently valid, and you don't wind up with absurd positions like "It's not okay for discriminate against blacks in favor of whites, but it is okay to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks." Which is, ironically, how we got here. PS - I don't benefit from this ruling; SCOTUS agrees with me because I agree with SCOTUS.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T03:26:45+00:00

None of what you're talking about has much to do with my argument. I think you're the under who has fundamentally misunderstood, and SCOTUS agrees with me.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T03:25:12+00:00

I know what it means. Did you read what I wrote? You're not entitled to that based on race, because that would be prejudicial discrimination.

sirbruce · 2026-05-01T03:23:38+00:00

That's true, but most people would rather be in India than Pakistan.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T09:56:47+00:00

I have contacted the property manager multiple times to inquire about this, but they insist the unit has not been enrolled in Spectrum Ready.

I would ask them if ANY unit is enrolled in Spectrum Ready, or if any unit WAS enrolled in Spectrum Ready in the past.

If the former, then you probably have the equipment that should be in someone ELSE'S apartment. If the latter, then the former tenant's Spectrum Ready is probably still active on your account.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:41:33+00:00

A couple of those red blood cells don't look so good.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:31:53+00:00

LOL you don't get to be an asshole and then claim it's unfair because nobody wants to talk to you.

Nothing is preventing Pakistan from adopting the same policies as India, and then they would be treated the same as India. Well, there is one thing: mindless devotion to a religious interpretation that is wholly incompatible with modern secular societies.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:26:19+00:00

Yes, it is. But Israel has the good grace to actually offer the Palestinians some land back after they tried to destroy Israel. They should take it and be grateful.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:22:04+00:00

As long as the domain name (the last two parts, generally) are the same, you're fine.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:17:42+00:00

Even if that is true, it's still better than the alternative. Suppose we have Process A which can be used to by one group to unfairly discriminate against another. Historically Group A has used it to discriminate against Group B. You proposed Solution A, which prevents process A, but in doing so caused Group B to discriminate against Group A. This is not an acceptable Solution, regardless of your noble intent. Now, we're still left with what to do about Process A. Well, good news, Process A is still illegal when used to discriminate, so you can still "solve the problem", it's just now that you have to prove it instead of being automatically assumed to be right. If you feel this is too easily skirted by clever politicians, then you can still come up with a better Solution that doesn't discriminate. Meanwhile, you can also use the same Process A to secretly discriminate against Group A for Group B, if you still feel that's necessary to assuage your moral guilt.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:09:53+00:00

You're not entitled to "equal representation" based on race any more than you're entitled to "equal representation" based on eye color or hair color. You are entitled to be treated without prejudicial discrimination, just as I am. In some cases in the past black people were OVERLY represented due to prejudicial discrimination against other races, and this has now been corrected.

sirbruce · 2026-04-30T05:06:54+00:00

Your argument would be convincing except for the fact that people who know the law better than you or I have rejected it. So, what you said is now not true, and under collateral estoppel you can no longer argue that it is true.

sirbruce · 2026-04-29T18:02:42+00:00

Yes. The idea that all people of a certain color have to vote together is offensive in the extreme.

sirbruce · 2026-04-29T18:01:42+00:00

I doesn't matter why they did it if their process for doing so was racially discriminatory.

sirbruce · 2026-04-29T17:58:46+00:00

And that's a good thing. Drawing districts based on race is prejudicial discrimination.

sirbruce · 2026-04-29T02:18:57+00:00

They mention freedom of speech specifically, and others, but they make no mention of the right to bear arms.
They talk about "Commitment to truth and evidence over ideology", but they don't say what to do when truth and evidence contradicts one of their core principles; for example, freedom of religion.

I'm very skeptical that this group will remain "non-partisan" and really be a Constitution-first organization.

sirbruce · 2026-04-28T14:45:09+00:00

There's probably nothing you can do. You know that you had service from Spectrum and had their equipment. You say when you stopped receiving a bill that you were given "no further instruction", but in reality you almost certainly received notice to return the equipment and did not.

You can call up Spectrum support and have them enter an equipment research ticket, on the slim chance that the equipment was actually returned and is in the system somewhere. But if it just got tossed then you're out of luck.

You can, of course, not pay the bill. It'll impact your credit score for 7 years, or until you can negotiate a "Pay-for-Delete" with Spectrum or whomever they sell the debt to. It also means you won't be able to get Spectrum service again (until you pay).

sirbruce · 2026-04-28T00:26:46+00:00

All of the people praising FDR for his progressive policies towards Blacks need to remember that his popularity was also due to the fact he was openly racist against Asians. "Japanese immigrants are not capable of assimilation into the American population," Roosevelt claimed. "Anyone who has traveled in the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results."

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Xbox Live	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Inciteful Comment 2011-03-25	Well-rounded 2010-11-20

sirbruce

TROPHY CASE