About 45 minutes ago, Opportunity successfully landed on the opposite side of Mars that Spirit is on - just a couple hours after Spirit began communicating again in intelligable data bursts that NASA could use. So now, we've got two rovers on the face of Mars, two rovers sending back amazing pictures, interesting data, and scientific knowledge to be used for years (if not decades) to come.

It's simply an amazing feat and one that I've been watching for the past few weeks with great enthusiasm. To think that we could send off little rovers over 280 million miles each and have them both land on an unfamiliar terrain, begin exploration, and search for water, which might indicate previous life, is almost incomprehensible. No matter what you think about the U.S.' foreign policy, debt, or what not, it certainly makes me proud to be an American - part of the most advanced culture on the planet. And as they just said on NASAtv (yes, people do watch that station), we've now raised the world's success rate from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3 - as the European launched rover failed in its landing on Mars a few months ago.

It should definitely be interesting to see the pictures we get back from Opportunity, which landed on a plain, rather than in a crater. Next, we just have to send humans to Mars.

URL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

I'm so incredibly sick of Atkins this, Atkins that. Everywhere you go, it's low-carb, it's sugar-free, it's all crap. You've got to be fooling yourself that a diet that cuts out carbs and says, go ahead, eat all the fat you want is good for you. Case in point, Carls' Jr. low-carb six dollar burger. So here we have a huge hamburger patty, large slice of cheese, ketchup, mustard, etc., but because it's wrapped in lettuce instead of in a bun, it's better for you? No. It's not better for you. Could you lose a couple pounds by cutting out carbs? Sure, but why not just get the heart bypass now?

While I tolerated the fad (yes, it's just a fad, it will pass), it's gotten out of control. I don't care if you take the bun off your burger or drink diet coke to avoid the sugar, but when you add cheese, bacon, and just anything else with fat in it, what are you accomplishing? A recent trip to the store turned up low-carb bread, low-carb chips, low-carb everything and there's "Atkins-friendly" Subway wraps, "Atkins-friendly" TGIF meals, and the insanity goes on and on. I just don't understand how all these people are fooled by the Atkins diet. Increasing fat intake sounds like a great way to become healthier - just don't have any sugar or bread.

Not much to write about today, per se. Just a couple thoughts about the surprising results of the caucus last night. Going into the voting, most pundits believed there was a 3 or 4 way tie for first. However, when all was said and done, Kerry & Edwards were the closest to the top with Kerry winning and Dean lagged very far behind. Personally, I'm both happy and sad about these results. I'm happy because I'm sick of this Dean juggernaut on the internet. Everyone's pimping for him on blogs, proclaiming him the next great thing and personally, I despise the man. He's basically sayint everything he can to distance himself from the current administration, but in the process, losing all moderate voters, which seems to have hurt him in the caucus, because, according to the exit polls, most people voted for the person they thought had the best chance to beat Bush in the election.

Which brings me to the reason I'm kind of upset. If Dean had won, he would have probably catapulted to the front of the New Hampshire primary and put him in the driver's seat for the Democratic nomination - which would have been great news for Republicans because there's probably 0% chance of him beating out Bush in a national election. But I think that Kerry has at least a shot at unseating Bush, which, from a geek's standpoint isn't such a great thing. Most of Kerry's funding comes from big Media (AOL Time Warner, Disney, etc.) - which unfortunately would probably lead to more restrictions on the Internet - which I believe should be left alone and open. So, what's the best option for fellow geeks out there? According to CNET's article (linked below), it's Joe Lieberman, but while he has a very open stance on IT, he's so protectionist, it's almost scary, and has no chance of beating Bush anyways.

Though I'm registered Independent, it's no surprise that I lean towards the right. I think Bush is doing a great job after inheriting an economy that was already in a downward spiral before he took office. It's insane that all these people are out there blaming him for the economy, which he, along with Alan Greenspan and his other advisors have turned around. As an Economics major, I understand how cycles work and how the economy responds to certain simuli. Clinton rode the wave of prosperity which was ushered in by George Bush (the first). He also rode a dot-com bubble which was bound to burst and through liberal spending strategies, put us into a bust that had to be reversed by George W. Bush. Should he remain in office for another four years, I predict the U.S. finally rebounding under his fiscal directions, whereas if we suddenly switch to a liberal spending strategy (most scary under Dean), we'd once again be hit with a couple years of prosperity as we ride the Bush fiscal policy, only to be hit with another downward spiral. Should turn out to be an interesting 2004.

URL: IT Industry Watches Iowa