Since I quite enjoyed the talk I'm willing to overlook that fact He did also have some good examples of actual cold welding.

NASA has an interesting lessons learned article about the Galileo high gain antenna failure, which also seems to be more nuanced than "it was cold welding" - http://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/492

p.s. I got curious about the reference to Gemini, and I'm not 100% sure but I think it might come from a 1991 paper "On-Orbit Coldwelding Fact or Friction?" by Dursch, H. & Spear, S. (Bibliographic Code: 1991NASCP3134.1565D) or else it's from the paper it references as ref 5 (I. Stambler "Surface Effects in Space", Space/Aeronautics, Vol 45 No. 2, 1966 pp. 63-67).

That paper gives the opposite impression to the start of Derek's talk, rather than cold welding being discovered around the time of Gemini, it was often thought to be a problem around that time but as he says later was subsequently found to be quite rare (Dursch and Spear found no actual cases of cold welding causing spacecraft issues, they were usually friction issues due to fretting or galling caused by loss of lubricants, but still recommended taking precautions to avoid coldwelding).

They're not both terrible to the same degree, though.

Your country's right-wing media have had it out for the Clintons for over 20 years now. Ever since one of them became President.

And all they've been able to come up with is some controversy about the Benghazi embassy bombing. There were many 'Benghazi's' during Bush's tenure. And the problem with the e-mail servers. And again, the Cheney-Bush presidency sucessfully deleted over 30,000 e-mails pertaining to their conspiracy to send America to war in Iraq. Why doesn't the news cover that? Because their deletion of e-mails was wholly successful.

So despite all of that fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the right-wing media in the past 20 years the Clinton Foundation has done incredible humanitarian work throughout the world. Apparently it's possible that Melinda Gates and a sultan of Brunei may have been able to speak to Hillary because of their sizable donations, but it's also possible that those people are already of necessary stature to speak to Hillary.

So, that's 3 things over 20 years that stuck. Hillary has fought her entire life to be where she is, even having to endure heckling by men when she was writing her Harvard Law acceptance test. To say that she's in the same basket as Trump is, at best, intellectually dishonest. You're just parroting your media's narrative.

If you think Hillary is bad then you must believe Trump to be truly deplorable. Then why would you equate the two?

I love Snopes. Of course, the devil is in the details:

"The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:

"Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"'You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.'

"A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii.

"A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya." As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard."

I get it....no blame, or if there's blame I'll take it....(and I think that was a Harvard explanation of the WHO report, not a new study) I'm just saying that number is incorrect, and the numbers I quote came from the WHO themselves. Since it's their study we're discussing, it makes sense to take their stats, no?

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

Self defense is a perfect reason to hit anyone, regardless of gender. There's no reasonable excuse to hit someone first (unless you're boxing).

According to a Harvard study, 70% of one sided domestic abuse is perpetrated BY women, not against women. When both sides participate, it's about 50/50.
http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm

It seems that teaching women to not hit is ignored in favor of teaching men to not hit.

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

Talk about pushing the boundaries. Everyone's racist. You can prove it with an implicit association test. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Everybody slams W but he's the only President with a master's in business (from Harvard), and he flew an F-102, which was not an easy aircraft to fly.

He's also the author of a biography of his father, and never once did he throw his grandmother under the bus for being a typical white woman.

He certainly came across as a dunce, but it's obvious to anyone with a brain that he was and is pretty sharp.

Obama, on the other hand...

http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...401..759M

Indeed the lens does seem a bit spendy. For the specifications of the linked setup article, the mirror (31cm Protected Aluminum) runs about $2550 at Edmund Scientific.

Like I said, you'll just have to settle for trying (in vain) to convince your fellow sifters by shouting.

Attempting to comprehend, let alone respond to, your ramblings is the epitome of exercises in futility. And when someone points this out to you that your rants make no sense, you'll say that it's because that person cannot read.

It's as though an illiterate person tries to argue, in writing, with a Harvard professor about whether the professor knows how to read. It's absurd.

And what's most absurd, of course, is that the professor spends any time debating at all!

Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

If 67% of the citizens are black, then why don't they vote black representatives to the city council? No one is forcing them to vote for white people. Also, why is it that we are taught that all people are equal, except when minorities are not represented in the same percentage in every walk of life. If all people are equal, then all white cops should be good, right?

But then, if a black man is a cop, then he is no longer black, right? He's an uncle Tom. Same thing they said about Obama before he was elected...he wasn't 'down for the struggle' because he was half-white, grew up in Hawaii and went to Harvard. He was the 'magic Negro'.

Also, cops don't just act on their own. They are following orders given them by their command structure. If the city doesn't like how the cops respond, they should address the mayor and the chief of police.

Here again we hear 'unarmed black man' as a victim of a fatal shooting. When someone is trying to take a policeman's gun, he is only temporarily unarmed. A policeman's gun is community property...it belongs to anyone who can get it. 25% of cops are shot with their own weapon so cops get kinda defensive about people grabbing at it.

Also, Michael Brown was not a boy scout, he was a guy who just committed a forcible shoplifting, which in most states is considered a felony. While the officer did not know this, it may help explain the state of mind of Michael Brown when confronted by the cop.

There may be plenty of blame to go around in this situation but it doesn't help when people riot before all the facts are in. Today the cops are given all the blame while the citizen is given every excuse by the media.