61256

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 22:13:11 GMT
Lines: 29

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:

>Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach
>  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term
>     of man-tended capability) 

>Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) 

>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.

I'll vote for anything where they don't feel constrained to use stupid
and ugly PC phrases to replace words like 'manned'.  If they think
they need to do that, they're more than likely engaging in 'politics
and public relations as usual' rather than seriously wanting to
actually get into space.  So that eliminates Option "A" from the
running.  What do they call a manned station in Option "C"?

[I'm actually about half serious about that.  People should be more
concerned with grammatical correctness and actually getting a working
station than they are with 'Political Correctness' of terminology.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.