Trust me on this because I'm getting married in a few months. No photographer is going to give you the full resolution versions of the photo's unless they also assign the copyright to you, or sign a waiver allowing you to reprint them.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote. You also got the "unless" part wrong. By default, the copyrights on the photos go to you, because it's a work for hire. You actually have to sign over the copyright to *them* for the situation you are referring to.
Generally they give you a CD with low res versions and X number of prints. If you want anything else printed you have to go through them.
Why would you accept that?
"Unless" and "generally" means it's not always true--in other words, *you* can choose to not give them copyright of the photos. Which brings up the question: why would *you* choose a photographer who *doesn't* provide you with the high quality originals? There must be some reason.
If they won't do it, go to someone who will.
Obviously they'd prefer to keep control of the original files, so they're going to offer the service like that. Propose that you get the originals with full copyrights. Unless they are all booked, there's no rational reason for them to refuse--they'd just be refusing your money. If they don't want your money, there's always someone else who does.
"If I want to actually ship a working NeWS, I'll start with the original code. If it's too unusable, so be it"
Your choice. But when you consider that you have no experienced individuals who know the code, it practically guarantees project failure.
You read that wrong (I could have written it more clearly). "So be it" means that if the code is too unusable, then "so be it" (or "c'est la vie"), in other words, then *don't* use it. But the first thing you do is try to use the existing code.
"Calling it "reference code", and making that a differentiating point, is dishonest. Rewrite it, use it as is, look at it and throw it out in disgust--all of those things are valid responses in what I'm stating, which is that I'll use the existing code."
It is not dishonest.
I've highlighted the word you missed.
Is Mozilla the original Netscape code? No!
So? Don't you think they started with the Netscape code? Don't you think the very first compiled version of Mozilla was the original Netscape code with maybe a few changes here and there? (mostly s/Netscape/Mozilla/g)
They rewrote it to decruftify the entire thing! The stability, poor performance, and other issues with the original, all pointed to a collapsing codebase. Thus it was a rewrite, just not a rewrite from scratch.
In other words (to use your original example), they made a new version of NeWS by starting with the original NeWS code, found it useful (but crufty) and moved on from there.
You are being daft. Do you think I meant just recompile the original NeWS and call it done? There's absolutely no possible reason you could think that, but your examples imply it.
Calling Mozilla the Netscape codebase is what would be dishonest.
You'll note that I haven't done that. Nice straw man you've skewered there.
So, you're absolutely sure you're not going to get bit by assumptions made about the number of colors (Black and White), the resolutions available, the tools available, the processor instructions available, the cache design, the layout of the frame buffer, so on and so forth. You *really* think that 15 year old piece of code would be easier to get working on modern hardware than it would be to rewrite it using the code as a reference? Good luck.
I'm absolutely certain I'm going to get bit by those assumptions. The point is that there's a lot, a lot, of code I don't have to rewrite.
If my goal is to make the most beautifully designed, most dogmatically correct, most bestest NeWS ever, I'll start from scratch (although in that case, I probably wouldn't copy someone else's project to begin with, but assuming otherwise...). If I want to actually ship a working NeWS, I'll start with the original code. If it's too unusable, so be it, but it's the most obvious place to start.
Calling it "reference code", and making that a differentiating point, is dishonest. Rewrite it, use it as is, look at it and throw it out in disgust--all of those things are valid responses in what I'm stating, which is that I'll use the existing code.
Likewise, if my goal is to get land on the Moon, why not use a Saturn V? Duh, it'll be harder than just ordering the parts and screwing them all together, but it's gotta be easier than doing it the first time round was.
So, if it took less than ten years the first time, why should it take more than ten this time? You make it sound as though launching a Saturn V starting today would be harder than it was starting in 1962! Sure, there are a thousand and one caveats, but there were a million and one in the '60s.
I'm not certain you understand the issues. It's not just that the parts don't exist anymore, it's that the factories to make those parts don't exist anymore.
Get real. You can make a custom bolt in a high school shop class. But even if you had to actually build a whole slew of factories, that would cost what? $1bn on the extreme high end? That's one shuttle launch (maybe two, now), which is my original point--that we can land on the Moon before the end of the current President's term, all without increasing NASA's budget, if we want to go with the Saturn V. Personally, I think it makes more sense to start anew, but it's foolish to think it would be harder to build and launch a Saturn V today, than it was starting in 1962.
So the cost of revitalizing the Saturn V becomes a baseline, an, "it can be done for this cheap, at least", so cost isn't a sticking point. If Boeing, or whoever, can build a better rocket, for less, then great! But at the very least, my point (following the point of the original poster) is that at the very least, we could use the Saturn V if we really wanted to return to the Moon by 2010 or sooner.
Think of it this way: NeWS was a powerful windowing system back in the early 90's that put X-Windows to shame. It has since disappeared due to Sun's attempt to keep the technology proprietary. Now if you wanted to revisit the concepts of NeWS, would you start with unmaintained 15 year old code that makes assumptions about machines that don't even exist any longer, or would you reuse the original concept in a new design that would take advantage of the far simpler programming model of today's languages, environments, and hardware?
You are DAMNED STRAIGHT I'd start with the 15 year old source code. You're not a programmer, are you? It's *always* easier to start with something that works, or that can be finagled to work, than to start from scratch, on any appreciable sized project. In the long run, you'd possibly be better of starting from scratch if the newer technologies are really compelling enough, and to difficult to port the existing code to, but if my goal is to release a working copy of NeWS (or whatever), I'd start with the original code first.
"What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?" No but most of the parts are no longer available. Things like specific nuts, bolts, gaskets, and electronics.
"Alright boys, you've got ten years to build me a nut to these specs..."
Somehow that task seems like it shouldn't take 10 years.
Also the blue prints are not cad drawings they are microfilm. So if where where going to build a new Saturn it really would be a new Saturn. It would have to be an almost complete new design.
They engineered, built, and flew the Saturn V without CAD drawings! Is that impossible to do today?
But lets say that for some reason, it is. It should certainly take less than 10 years to enter the drawings into a CAD system. It took less than 10 years to hand draw them in the first place (and they certainly had to draw and redraw the same part over and over again, throw out bad designs, etc).
Next is MONEY.
There's the rub. It only takes a few moments to realize we could revitalize the Saturn rocket, and go from there. I'm pretty sure we could restart from where Apollo left off for less than we spend yearly on the Space Shuttle (assuming we get back to flight). We could even do them in parallel, cutting shuttle flights down by half. Obviously I don't have the budget figures required, but I find it hard to believe NASA couldn't land on the Moon before Bush leaves office with a budget similar to their current one.
So what's left? Initially, I was quite excited about the Moon-Mars program, and I truly want to believe, but am finding it quite difficult at the moment.
Please provide one single example of official censorship of speech in the U.S.
Funny that I didn't say the US censors speech.
waiting...
Waiting? Waiting before you even posted the question? That's a bit foolish.
Can't come up with one?
More than one (not that I'm obligated to)...
The FCC (Howard Stern, Janet Jackson). The various examples where the courts say people can't talk about the subpoenas they are executing. Postcards from Buster.
But of course, you make another logical mistake--you ask for official examples. My post was about the unofficial (ie: with no law) examples, like the way many people were arrested with no basis during the election.
Now please stop attempting spurious comparisons bashing the United States.
I know it's fashionable for the "He's not my president" crowd to say this these days, but give me one actual example of this.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Any of the numerous arrests during the election.
The so-called "secret" law that requires photo ID to board a plane.
I know you only wanted one.
I just think the constant use of such hyperbole makes people I would otherwise agree with on many issues sound like a bunch of hysterical morons.
That's because you're an idiot...
Why do I say that? First, because you just called me a "hysterical moron". Next time try not to bring down the conversation.
Second, because what I said is true. "An idiot" is what you call someone who thinks a speaker of the truth (who was not, by the way, hysterical at all) a "hysterical moron".
(and no, you can't weasel out by saying you weren't calling *me* a "hysterical moron"--you clearly were, even if you thought you'd get around it by just grouping me in with them but not calling me one directly)
>"Nice theory you've got there to justify your being an asshole."
Good job proving the same of yourself.
Being a dick to people who suffer tragedy--especially kids who've been burned so severely they might not even live--is being an asshole. Calling someone an asshole isn't.
Holy shit! He may be an asshole, but you're retarded! Don't you recognize satire when you see it??!!?
So, wait. *I'm* an asshole for calling some sociopath one, but *you're* going to call me retarded? The guy wasn't being satirical--he was making a point. His world-view depends on casting anyone who shows the slightest bit of compassion as a bleeding-heart liberal. It's necessary in order for him to remain self-consistant.
Subconscious message, dumbass. Stupid people will be subtly encouraged to behave like monkeys.
That doesn't support his point. Are you saying that people are going around subconsciously burning themselves to the brink of death via home-made Star Wars/napalm stunts?
But go ahead and cry for the stupid. Go buy them flowers and give them each a hug. Console them. Tell them they'll be ok. Pray for them. Retard.
See above. Where did I say to do any of that? I haven't suggested anyone do anything *for* them. What I *have* suggested is not to be a sociopathic asshole. But anyone who suggests otherwise is an absurd pansy who cries when a butterfly stubs its toe, right?
Nice theory you've got there to justify your being an asshole.
>NB : Before you make any cheap cracks, the people involved are seriously injured.
You're absolutely right. We should set up a foundation for them - donate money to help the victims of this horrible travesty.
Gowan *is* absolutely right, we should remember the people were seriously injured. He said nothing about giving them money and saying how smart, unique and unfortunate they are, or anything like that.
In doing so, we should strive to send a message to people everywhere that while there may be consequences to their actions, they will gain sympathy, attention and financial support for their ordeal.
WTF? Asking people to keep in mind that the people involved are seriously injured is going to lead to great masses of people voluntarily severely burning themselves in order that they too might be the ones who we are asked to keep in mind are severely injured? Do you realize how severely flawed your theory of the world must be to be so extraordinarily out-of-touch with reality?
In all seriousness; this is one of those rare opportunities where stupid behaviour affected only those responsible rather than harming innocent by-standers.
Stage one for your theory: pretend it's an unavoidable, natural law. In spite of your set-up, being stupid should not, in and of itself, be enough to warrant life-threatening, not to mention extremely agonizing, burns. Especially at 17 and 20 years old.
I'm not sure how we became so left-leaning and bleeding hearted that we can't hold people responsible for their own actions
Stage two: pretend that "bleeding heart liberals" are in violation of that "law of nature". No one said the two shouldn't be responsible for their actions.
The lesson here? Set something on fire, burn yourself, learn lesson.
If that's the lesson you learned, you learned it wrong. In general, it's rare to get burned when setting something on fire. I *does* happen, though, and the risks should be known and properly respected.
In your asshole conservative world, people should learn on their own about the pitfalls of being human. Don't teach people about sex, guns, fire, etc. Let them figure it out on their own--let their scars (if they survive) be their teacher, right?
The liberal view is to actually go out of our way, as a society, to teach people things we think it might be good for them to know, and to ameliorate, if reasonable to do so, some of the more extreme calamities people might find themselves in. None of which violates causality, responsibility, or any other excuse assholes such as yourself like to use.
Their pain and scars should be enough to scare most kids straight.
*Most* kids? "Scared straight"? What kind of notion is that? *Most* kids will already never try to play Jedi with petrol+soap burning in light tubes. And aside from the stupidity and resulting calamity of the act, this isn't some strange, non-normal behavior, so it's not exactly 'straight' to not do it.
What closet have you been living in? I've got news for ya bub. The world already hates America. If you need proof, watch news footage of 9-11-2001. I highly doubt America needs to worry too much about the world hating it... already done.
Let's see, I'll command TiVo to show me news footage of 9/11...
OH MY GOD, THE WHOLE WORLD IS CONSOLING US AND LOVING US! There were less than two dozen people attacking us on 9/11, and there were only an EXTREMELY SMALL number of people spouting anti-American ideas that day.
You neocons live in a fantasy world. 9/11 was perpetrated by an extreme minority of religious fanatics (they did have a legitimate beef with us, but the terrorist attack was *not* the proper way to address it). By mid-day, the world was *WHOLLY* on our side. It only took Bush 12-18 months to turn that around.
Bravo, you fool neocons who place theory above reality, bravo!
>We're the USA, if someone starts to militarize space, we'll just knock their systems down.
Do you realize that people from other countries also read this site?
No, I'm a retard. I thought the Intarweb was just on AOL, and that AOL is only for Americans. Duh!
This whole "we do what we want, fuck the rest of the world" attitude has seem to become the norm in the US. I don't think most Americans realize how much their country has benefited from being viewed essentially as a benevolent power.
I *fully* realize how important good will is for us. That's why I *don't* want the US to be the ones to launch a space weapon, and I don't want anyone else to, either.
But you seem to be a reasonable, moderate person. And what you said basically amounts to: "we can do it or not do it, but we won't ever let anyone else do it". And that says a lot.
I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, we "can do it or not", but I merely mean physically, not morally. We *can* militarize space with impunity, but that doesn't mean we *should*. Russia is also capable of militarizing space, probably. China can't (right now), and if they tried (right now), the international community would certainly back us (that good will you're talking about) in shooting it down--as long as we didn't just off and do it, but actually went to the UN (properly, not like we did with Iraq).
The US, for good or bad (or in actuality, for good and bad) is the dominant power in the world. If we *can* keep space unmilitarized, we should do so. If the tables were turned, I'll feel the same way--this isn't national pride and belligerence, it's being a rational human who doesn't want to see space militarized, and I'm certain I'm in the majority on this.
Gee, I'm sure glad you're not in charge of our foreign policy.
Don't be stupid. If China (for example) decided to launch a space weapons platform, the end result with be either China de-orbiting the platform (best option), us (with international support) shooting it down (good option), or us launching 10x the amount of weaponry into space (worst option). NO ONE wants a space weapon aimed at them, and unlike nuclear weapons, the genie isn't yet out of the bottle.
But if we militarize space (and we *can* with impunity), then when Russia or China decides to do so, we won't have the moral grounds to stop them. *THEN* we'll be in a world where "death from space" will be only a few minutes away, forever, and it's wholly unnecessary.
China would not launch a nuclear strike against the US if we shot down a space weapon.
A: Sir, they've just given Cuba nuclear missiles.
B: Hah! We're the USA! Just go and bomb them all.
That's your flaw. I didn't say, "if a country began to militarize space, we'd bomb them all!
It was *very* wise of you to post anonymously, since you post is so extraordinarily flawed.
You miss the entire point -- he's talking about research.
Xerox Parc, Bell Labs, IBM, the NSF, all the colleges around the world, the space sciences (not rocketry) part of NASA, etc, and so on.
Like the parent poster said, atomic energy, the internet (heck even computers themselves) etc. wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the military.
Wrong. Those things all got extra money from the military, but they would have been invented anyway. Babbage came up with the idea of the programmable computer, Bell Labs invented the transistor, Intel invented the IC, and Apple invented the Personal Computer. Military research certainly helped move things along, but there's *no* reason that research couldn't have come from non-military government spending.
Atomic energy was already understood to be possible, but it was the need for the bomb that spurred development of it.
*No one* is saying that military spending isn't responsible for a lot of research, what *I'm* saying is that the claim that *only* the military can spend money on unprofitable research is not only "theoretically" absurd, but it's demonstrably false--in fact, it's not even like a person has to search high and low before they can find evidence to the contrary, it's proudly proclaimed all over the place!
Now, if you want to say that government spending is crucial to industry and society, and that it helps spur research faster than most anything else, I fully agree! That's a whole different thing than saying that *only* the military can spend money on not-profitible endeavors.
How you manage to miss
1) that this is so, and 2) that this is what the parent poster is trying to say
is quite beyond me.
That's *really* funny to me. Maybe it's because he said, "Face it... the only institution that can continue to pour money somewhere before it is profitable to do so is the military." which is demonstrably wrong, making the poster "absolutely and fundamentally incorrect."
"They *do* like a role model they can look up to, and who helps them."
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
If you're referring to WWII, they *did* like us. Liking someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. They were very glad for the help.
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace
That's a huge load. We've asked for *plenty*. We've asked for permanent military bases, we've asked for money and for troops to help us fight our unpopular wars.
Most of our military actions ever since Korea have been exceedingly unwelcome by the people of the countries we've invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked.
No, the world doesn't hate us for when we offer true assistance--they hate us when we assert our will on them. They hate us when *we* are responsible for death and destruction.
We're like the corrupt police who beat people and extort from the innocent. The people *hate* those police, and it's not because they are jealous, or because they are ungrateful for the times the police actually *do* protect them, it's for the times when the police abuse their power, and betray the public trust.
The world was *overwhelmingly* with us after 9/11. They were with us on Afghanistan. They listened to us make the case for Iraq, and then said, "No, you're wrong." We went ahead anyway, and it turns out we *were* wrong.
If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit.
Sure we will. But that credit also comes with the cost of the war--how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will it have taken by the end?
Not to mention the fact that we are *directly* responsible for Saddam's party gaining power in Iraq long ago, and we supported Saddam when he was gassing people, which we now hypocritically condemn him for.
The world will certainly give us *all* the credit we are due, good and bad.
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
The current Iraq war isn't the beginning of American aggression in the world, it's just an extremely visible example. In other words, for many people, hatred of America was already legitimate.
What? Who said anything about a space war? You do understand the difference between war and weapons right? Currently, there there are no space based weapon systems....
Great deduction, Sherlock. That's what I meant.
Since 1998 we have known that China is developing a laser weapon that can take out our communication and intelligence satellites. See, the "game" is always going on, it never ends.
That's not the game I'm referring to. We're not talking about shooting down satellites, we're talking about shooting *from* satellites. No one has a space weapons platform--and the world's better off for it.
If we do not develop space weapon systems, someone else will.
Let them try! If they do, we'll shoot it down. If we can't, for some reason, we can put up 10x the firepower in 6 months.
On the other hand, right now, *NO ONE* is putting weapons in space. If we do it first, *we'll* have initiated an era of even greater threat to humanity. Better to put off that era as long as possible, isn't it?
You are saying that the French have moral authority because they did not take adequate steps to protect themselves? If that is the case, I would rather be free and immoral than moral and without my jewish friends.
That's not the case. You are practicing a favorite game of the neocons--pretend anyone who disagrees with you wants to be invaded by Hitler. It's sick.
Re-read what I wrote. I stated that the French were in the game, and they *didn't* act to defend themselves when they should have. The Nazis started that game. Right now *we're* starting a new one. That's very disturbing.
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." - David Letterman
Bash the French, it's so easy! That doesn't make it wise to start putting weapons in space. You do something like that in *response* to a threat. If you start it, *YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE THREAT*.
Besides that, I'd rather have a military that fights to win, not to be 'fair'.
Who said we had to fight to be "fair and not win"? That's ignorant tripe. There's no need, RIGHT NOW, to militarize space.
I suppose you imagine the Chinese space initiatives are based entirely on a desire to throw Peace and Love into orbit? Perhaps daisies?
Yeah, that's exactly what I think. I think China is planing to plant space-daisies to ensure world feng shui peace. DAMN I'm sick of neo-con strawmen. I fully realize that one of the primary reasons for putting men in space from a political level is that you can use the same technology to deliver nuclear bombs. The point is that there's *NO NEED* for us to start putting weapons into space at the moment. When the need arises, I won't argue against it.
The same sort of logic would have said 90 years ago - OMFG, what are we doing ARMING PLANES?
Lame. 90 years ago we were fighting a war with planes. When you're actually fighting a war, you've got to tool up. That's simple. We're not fighting a war, right now, where space weapons platforms are necessary, and the threat of such a war isn't even *remotely* reasonable. If we do it, it's just because we *can*, not because we *have to*.
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited? So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous? When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
There are many motives for hatred, and "jealousy" is one of the feeblest.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they *hate* us because we go around killing them. Just look at South America. People really don't like having some jerks from thousands of miles away come and tell them what to do, and siphon away their natural resources. They *do* like a role model they can look up to, and who helps them.
Which do you think we are?
We keep creating the people we have to take down: Noriega, Saddam, Osama.
Who was it who was screaming so loudly for us to come and defend them when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Oh, yeah, the Saudis...the same lot that's demanding we leave their terroritory.
No, we lied and told the Saudis that Saddam was massing troops on his border with faked satellite photos. *They* didn't want us there at all. We also told Saddam it was alright if he wanted to invade Kuwait.
Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
Are you purposefully being an ignorant fool? The world *used* to like us, and life was good. Now the Europeans are forming their own economic superpower, the Chinese are becoming powerful and would be good to keep as friends, and even our long-time friends in *this* hemisphere are telling us to take a hike.
How can you *possibly* think that not having true friends and allies is good for America?
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
The French were in the game and didn't know it. It only takes *one* party to start a war. Right now there's no real space war going on. In other words, *no one* is playing the game. It's disgusting to think *we'd* be the ones to start the game.
WWII *is* a good example. We didn't start it, but we helped finish it. That's the way it should be. Starting down the path to war undermines ones moral authority.
I've got guns in my house. I use most of them for fetching various things to eat. I keep a couple of them around because I am morally in tune with the prospect of using them to defend my family. From your perspective, owning anything lethal makes you equal to a murderer.
That's incredibly simple-minded, and a *huge* bugaboo of the right. Any call for peace boils down to you can't protect your family!
How disgusting.
Do you not see a difference between owning a gun, and placing WMDs in space? Hmm?
Keep your gun, I really don't care. I think you live in a fantasy world if you think you need it to protect your family (that, or you live in a strangely dangerous place where home invasions are the norm--I mean, really! If someone stormed your house with a gun, do you think you'd reach your gun in time? lol).
On the other hand, do you think you ought to be able to keep a nuke in your house?
Right now, space is relatively unarmed. *If* China, Russia, whoever, started putting weapons up there, then we can give it a go. It's disturbing to hear Americans demand that *we* be first. Once we do it, the rest of the world will follow more quickly.
What's the fascination of the right with rushing to armageddon?
Placing weapons in space, I'm sure, is something a lot of Chinese and Russians would like to do. But it's quite expensive, and they've got other priorities right now. But if *we* do it, they'll be "forced" to follow suit.
If we found out that China, for example, was going to launch a nuclear space station, we would just go to the UN and demand a resolution to stop them, with the provision that we can shoot it down.
As it stands, the US (and *maybe* Russia--with our consent) is the only nation that could begin to seriously begin to militarize space. That day might be inevitable, but there's no reason to rush into the prospect!
the very nature of working in that environment (not to mention orbital mechanics and whatnot) means you have to be pro-active, not re-active.
*If* we wanted to militarize space, we could do it in two years without breaking a sweat. There's no hurry.
Face it... the only institution that can continue to pour money somewhere before it is profitable to do so is the military.
Absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. The Department of Education, for example, is not profitable. NASA isn't profitable. The Forestry Department isn't profitable. Amtrak isn't profitable. The Corporation for Public Broadcast isn't profitable. The UN isn't profitable (jokes aside).
And in case you're thinking being unprofitable is the sole domain of government, Amazon spent years being not-profitable, and businesses and government aside, there are plenty of non-profit organizations.
they may have plans for space-to-ground weapons that are not WMD
Kinetic weapons launched from space *are* WMDs.
Energy weapons, on the other hand, aren't quite "mass destruction", but carry their own problems--it only takes an extremely *miniscule* error in angle to go from taking out a power station to hitting a schoolyard a few miles away. But technically, they might be legal (like the "napalm" we're using in Iraq--it's not the "Napalm" brand, even though it's essentially the exact same (illegal) weapon).
Yes, it is. We don't have to *choose* to deploy weapons now, and *that's* the choice some of us are making, poorly.
Will some nation eventually deploy weapons in space? I'd say there's a high liklihood.
Probably. It would be *stupid* to do it before it's necessary, though.
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
We're the USA, if someone starts to militarize space, we'll just knock their systems down. If they get a legitimate toe-hold in space, *then* we can jump in--it certainly won't take us long to dominate.
There's just no way a country would pre-emptively attack us from space without an overwhelming chance of victory. But if we begin to truly militarize space, then Russia and China (and India) will as well (unless we truly undertake to conquer the world, shudder). As we all build-up together, it will be far easier for the countries involved to put up enough firepower to launch (and even believe they can win) a first-strike.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me on this because I'm getting married in a few months. No photographer is going to give you the full resolution versions of the photo's unless they also assign the copyright to you, or sign a waiver allowing you to reprint them.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote. You also got the "unless" part wrong. By default, the copyrights on the photos go to you, because it's a work for hire. You actually have to sign over the copyright to *them* for the situation you are referring to.
Generally they give you a CD with low res versions and X number of prints. If you want anything else printed you have to go through them.
Why would you accept that?
"Unless" and "generally" means it's not always true--in other words, *you* can choose to not give them copyright of the photos. Which brings up the question: why would *you* choose a photographer who *doesn't* provide you with the high quality originals? There must be some reason.
If they won't do it, go to someone who will.
Obviously they'd prefer to keep control of the original files, so they're going to offer the service like that. Propose that you get the originals with full copyrights. Unless they are all booked, there's no rational reason for them to refuse--they'd just be refusing your money. If they don't want your money, there's always someone else who does.
Don't be a sucka.
If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid.
Are you serious? Providing a high quality product is "stupid"?
Stupid is hiring a photographer who *won't* give you the high quality digital files (assuming a digital camera is used).
"If I want to actually ship a working NeWS, I'll start with the original code. If it's too unusable, so be it"
Your choice. But when you consider that you have no experienced individuals who know the code, it practically guarantees project failure.
You read that wrong (I could have written it more clearly). "So be it" means that if the code is too unusable, then "so be it" (or "c'est la vie"), in other words, then *don't* use it. But the first thing you do is try to use the existing code.
"Calling it "reference code", and making that a differentiating point, is dishonest. Rewrite it, use it as is, look at it and throw it out in disgust--all of those things are valid responses in what I'm stating, which is that I'll use the existing code."
It is not dishonest.
I've highlighted the word you missed.
Is Mozilla the original Netscape code? No!
So? Don't you think they started with the Netscape code? Don't you think the very first compiled version of Mozilla was the original Netscape code with maybe a few changes here and there? (mostly s/Netscape/Mozilla/g)
They rewrote it to decruftify the entire thing! The stability, poor performance, and other issues with the original, all pointed to a collapsing codebase. Thus it was a rewrite, just not a rewrite from scratch.
In other words (to use your original example), they made a new version of NeWS by starting with the original NeWS code, found it useful (but crufty) and moved on from there.
You are being daft. Do you think I meant just recompile the original NeWS and call it done? There's absolutely no possible reason you could think that, but your examples imply it.
Calling Mozilla the Netscape codebase is what would be dishonest.
You'll note that I haven't done that. Nice straw man you've skewered there.
So, you're absolutely sure you're not going to get bit by assumptions made about the number of colors (Black and White), the resolutions available, the tools available, the processor instructions available, the cache design, the layout of the frame buffer, so on and so forth. You *really* think that 15 year old piece of code would be easier to get working on modern hardware than it would be to rewrite it using the code as a reference? Good luck.
I'm absolutely certain I'm going to get bit by those assumptions. The point is that there's a lot, a lot, of code I don't have to rewrite.
If my goal is to make the most beautifully designed, most dogmatically correct, most bestest NeWS ever, I'll start from scratch (although in that case, I probably wouldn't copy someone else's project to begin with, but assuming otherwise...). If I want to actually ship a working NeWS, I'll start with the original code. If it's too unusable, so be it, but it's the most obvious place to start.
Calling it "reference code", and making that a differentiating point, is dishonest. Rewrite it, use it as is, look at it and throw it out in disgust--all of those things are valid responses in what I'm stating, which is that I'll use the existing code.
Likewise, if my goal is to get land on the Moon, why not use a Saturn V? Duh, it'll be harder than just ordering the parts and screwing them all together, but it's gotta be easier than doing it the first time round was.
So, if it took less than ten years the first time, why should it take more than ten this time? You make it sound as though launching a Saturn V starting today would be harder than it was starting in 1962! Sure, there are a thousand and one caveats, but there were a million and one in the '60s.
I'm not certain you understand the issues. It's not just that the parts don't exist anymore, it's that the factories to make those parts don't exist anymore.
Get real. You can make a custom bolt in a high school shop class. But even if you had to actually build a whole slew of factories, that would cost what? $1bn on the extreme high end? That's one shuttle launch (maybe two, now), which is my original point--that we can land on the Moon before the end of the current President's term, all without increasing NASA's budget, if we want to go with the Saturn V. Personally, I think it makes more sense to start anew, but it's foolish to think it would be harder to build and launch a Saturn V today, than it was starting in 1962.
So the cost of revitalizing the Saturn V becomes a baseline, an, "it can be done for this cheap, at least", so cost isn't a sticking point. If Boeing, or whoever, can build a better rocket, for less, then great! But at the very least, my point (following the point of the original poster) is that at the very least, we could use the Saturn V if we really wanted to return to the Moon by 2010 or sooner.
Think of it this way: NeWS was a powerful windowing system back in the early 90's that put X-Windows to shame. It has since disappeared due to Sun's attempt to keep the technology proprietary. Now if you wanted to revisit the concepts of NeWS, would you start with unmaintained 15 year old code that makes assumptions about machines that don't even exist any longer, or would you reuse the original concept in a new design that would take advantage of the far simpler programming model of today's languages, environments, and hardware?
You are DAMNED STRAIGHT I'd start with the 15 year old source code. You're not a programmer, are you? It's *always* easier to start with something that works, or that can be finagled to work, than to start from scratch, on any appreciable sized project. In the long run, you'd possibly be better of starting from scratch if the newer technologies are really compelling enough, and to difficult to port the existing code to, but if my goal is to release a working copy of NeWS (or whatever), I'd start with the original code first.
"What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?"
No but most of the parts are no longer available. Things like specific nuts, bolts, gaskets, and electronics.
"Alright boys, you've got ten years to build me a nut to these specs..."
Somehow that task seems like it shouldn't take 10 years.
Also the blue prints are not cad drawings they are microfilm. So if where where going to build a new Saturn it really would be a new Saturn. It would have to be an almost complete new design.
They engineered, built, and flew the Saturn V without CAD drawings! Is that impossible to do today?
But lets say that for some reason, it is. It should certainly take less than 10 years to enter the drawings into a CAD system. It took less than 10 years to hand draw them in the first place (and they certainly had to draw and redraw the same part over and over again, throw out bad designs, etc).
Next is MONEY.
There's the rub. It only takes a few moments to realize we could revitalize the Saturn rocket, and go from there. I'm pretty sure we could restart from where Apollo left off for less than we spend yearly on the Space Shuttle (assuming we get back to flight). We could even do them in parallel, cutting shuttle flights down by half. Obviously I don't have the budget figures required, but I find it hard to believe NASA couldn't land on the Moon before Bush leaves office with a budget similar to their current one.
So what's left? Initially, I was quite excited about the Moon-Mars program, and I truly want to believe, but am finding it quite difficult at the moment.
Maybe Griffin can do it, let's hope.
Please provide one single example of official censorship of speech in the U.S.
Funny that I didn't say the US censors speech.
waiting...
Waiting? Waiting before you even posted the question? That's a bit foolish.
Can't come up with one?
More than one (not that I'm obligated to)...
The FCC (Howard Stern, Janet Jackson). The various examples where the courts say people can't talk about the subpoenas they are executing. Postcards from Buster.
But of course, you make another logical mistake--you ask for official examples. My post was about the unofficial (ie: with no law) examples, like the way many people were arrested with no basis during the election.
Now please stop attempting spurious comparisons bashing the United States.
Stuff it.
I know it's fashionable for the "He's not my president" crowd to say this these days, but give me one actual example of this.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Any of the numerous arrests during the election.
The so-called "secret" law that requires photo ID to board a plane.
I know you only wanted one.
I just think the constant use of such hyperbole makes people I would otherwise agree with on many issues sound like a bunch of hysterical morons.
That's because you're an idiot...
Why do I say that? First, because you just called me a "hysterical moron". Next time try not to bring down the conversation.
Second, because what I said is true. "An idiot" is what you call someone who thinks a speaker of the truth (who was not, by the way, hysterical at all) a "hysterical moron".
(and no, you can't weasel out by saying you weren't calling *me* a "hysterical moron"--you clearly were, even if you thought you'd get around it by just grouping me in with them but not calling me one directly)
Law? You don't need law to enforce the will of the party in China.
It's like that in the US now, too.
>"Nice theory you've got there to justify your being an asshole."
Good job proving the same of yourself.
Being a dick to people who suffer tragedy--especially kids who've been burned so severely they might not even live--is being an asshole. Calling someone an asshole isn't.
Holy shit! He may be an asshole, but you're retarded! Don't you recognize satire when you see it??!!?
So, wait. *I'm* an asshole for calling some sociopath one, but *you're* going to call me retarded? The guy wasn't being satirical--he was making a point. His world-view depends on casting anyone who shows the slightest bit of compassion as a bleeding-heart liberal. It's necessary in order for him to remain self-consistant.
Subconscious message, dumbass. Stupid people will be subtly encouraged to behave like monkeys.
That doesn't support his point. Are you saying that people are going around subconsciously burning themselves to the brink of death via home-made Star Wars/napalm stunts?
But go ahead and cry for the stupid. Go buy them flowers and give them each a hug. Console them. Tell them they'll be ok. Pray for them. Retard.
See above. Where did I say to do any of that? I haven't suggested anyone do anything *for* them. What I *have* suggested is not to be a sociopathic asshole. But anyone who suggests otherwise is an absurd pansy who cries when a butterfly stubs its toe, right?
Pathetic.
Nice theory you've got there to justify your being an asshole.
>NB : Before you make any cheap cracks, the people involved are seriously injured.
You're absolutely right. We should set up a foundation for them - donate money to help the victims of this horrible travesty.
Gowan *is* absolutely right, we should remember the people were seriously injured. He said nothing about giving them money and saying how smart, unique and unfortunate they are, or anything like that.
In doing so, we should strive to send a message to people everywhere that while there may be consequences to their actions, they will gain sympathy, attention and financial support for their ordeal.
WTF? Asking people to keep in mind that the people involved are seriously injured is going to lead to great masses of people voluntarily severely burning themselves in order that they too might be the ones who we are asked to keep in mind are severely injured? Do you realize how severely flawed your theory of the world must be to be so extraordinarily out-of-touch with reality?
In all seriousness; this is one of those rare opportunities where stupid behaviour affected only those responsible rather than harming innocent by-standers.
Stage one for your theory: pretend it's an unavoidable, natural law. In spite of your set-up, being stupid should not, in and of itself, be enough to warrant life-threatening, not to mention extremely agonizing, burns. Especially at 17 and 20 years old.
I'm not sure how we became so left-leaning and bleeding hearted that we can't hold people responsible for their own actions
Stage two: pretend that "bleeding heart liberals" are in violation of that "law of nature". No one said the two shouldn't be responsible for their actions.
The lesson here? Set something on fire, burn yourself, learn lesson.
If that's the lesson you learned, you learned it wrong. In general, it's rare to get burned when setting something on fire. I *does* happen, though, and the risks should be known and properly respected.
In your asshole conservative world, people should learn on their own about the pitfalls of being human. Don't teach people about sex, guns, fire, etc. Let them figure it out on their own--let their scars (if they survive) be their teacher, right?
The liberal view is to actually go out of our way, as a society, to teach people things we think it might be good for them to know, and to ameliorate, if reasonable to do so, some of the more extreme calamities people might find themselves in. None of which violates causality, responsibility, or any other excuse assholes such as yourself like to use.
Their pain and scars should be enough to scare most kids straight.
*Most* kids? "Scared straight"? What kind of notion is that? *Most* kids will already never try to play Jedi with petrol+soap burning in light tubes. And aside from the stupidity and resulting calamity of the act, this isn't some strange, non-normal behavior, so it's not exactly 'straight' to not do it.
What closet have you been living in? I've got news for ya bub. The world already hates America. If you need proof, watch news footage of 9-11-2001. I highly doubt America needs to worry too much about the world hating it... already done.
Let's see, I'll command TiVo to show me news footage of 9/11...
OH MY GOD, THE WHOLE WORLD IS CONSOLING US AND LOVING US! There were less than two dozen people attacking us on 9/11, and there were only an EXTREMELY SMALL number of people spouting anti-American ideas that day.
You neocons live in a fantasy world. 9/11 was perpetrated by an extreme minority of religious fanatics (they did have a legitimate beef with us, but the terrorist attack was *not* the proper way to address it). By mid-day, the world was *WHOLLY* on our side. It only took Bush 12-18 months to turn that around.
Bravo, you fool neocons who place theory above reality, bravo!
Now, excuse me while I barf.
>We're the USA, if someone starts to militarize space, we'll just knock their systems down.
Do you realize that people from other countries also read this site?
No, I'm a retard. I thought the Intarweb was just on AOL, and that AOL is only for Americans. Duh!
This whole "we do what we want, fuck the rest of the world" attitude has seem to become the norm in the US. I don't think most Americans realize how much their country has benefited from being viewed essentially as a benevolent power.
I *fully* realize how important good will is for us. That's why I *don't* want the US to be the ones to launch a space weapon, and I don't want anyone else to, either.
But you seem to be a reasonable, moderate person. And what you said basically amounts to: "we can do it or not do it, but we won't ever let anyone else do it". And that says a lot.
I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, we "can do it or not", but I merely mean physically, not morally. We *can* militarize space with impunity, but that doesn't mean we *should*. Russia is also capable of militarizing space, probably. China can't (right now), and if they tried (right now), the international community would certainly back us (that good will you're talking about) in shooting it down--as long as we didn't just off and do it, but actually went to the UN (properly, not like we did with Iraq).
The US, for good or bad (or in actuality, for good and bad) is the dominant power in the world. If we *can* keep space unmilitarized, we should do so. If the tables were turned, I'll feel the same way--this isn't national pride and belligerence, it's being a rational human who doesn't want to see space militarized, and I'm certain I'm in the majority on this.
Gee, I'm sure glad you're not in charge of our foreign policy.
Don't be stupid. If China (for example) decided to launch a space weapons platform, the end result with be either China de-orbiting the platform (best option), us (with international support) shooting it down (good option), or us launching 10x the amount of weaponry into space (worst option). NO ONE wants a space weapon aimed at them, and unlike nuclear weapons, the genie isn't yet out of the bottle.
But if we militarize space (and we *can* with impunity), then when Russia or China decides to do so, we won't have the moral grounds to stop them. *THEN* we'll be in a world where "death from space" will be only a few minutes away, forever, and it's wholly unnecessary.
China would not launch a nuclear strike against the US if we shot down a space weapon.
A: Sir, they've just given Cuba nuclear missiles.
B: Hah! We're the USA! Just go and bomb them all.
That's your flaw. I didn't say, "if a country began to militarize space, we'd bomb them all!
It was *very* wise of you to post anonymously, since you post is so extraordinarily flawed.
You miss the entire point -- he's talking about research.
Xerox Parc, Bell Labs, IBM, the NSF, all the colleges around the world, the space sciences (not rocketry) part of NASA, etc, and so on.
Like the parent poster said, atomic energy, the internet (heck even computers themselves) etc. wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the military.
Wrong. Those things all got extra money from the military, but they would have been invented anyway. Babbage came up with the idea of the programmable computer, Bell Labs invented the transistor, Intel invented the IC, and Apple invented the Personal Computer. Military research certainly helped move things along, but there's *no* reason that research couldn't have come from non-military government spending.
Atomic energy was already understood to be possible, but it was the need for the bomb that spurred development of it.
*No one* is saying that military spending isn't responsible for a lot of research, what *I'm* saying is that the claim that *only* the military can spend money on unprofitable research is not only "theoretically" absurd, but it's demonstrably false--in fact, it's not even like a person has to search high and low before they can find evidence to the contrary, it's proudly proclaimed all over the place!
Now, if you want to say that government spending is crucial to industry and society, and that it helps spur research faster than most anything else, I fully agree! That's a whole different thing than saying that *only* the military can spend money on not-profitible endeavors.
How you manage to miss
1) that this is so, and
2) that this is what the parent poster is trying to say
is quite beyond me.
That's *really* funny to me. Maybe it's because he said, "Face it... the only institution that can continue to pour money somewhere before it is profitable to do so is the military." which is demonstrably wrong, making the poster "absolutely and fundamentally incorrect."
Really? So the British people who disliked having American pilots defending their nation ("Overpaid, oversexed, and over here"), they were, what? Being ironic?
If you're referring to WWII, they *did* like us. Liking someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. They were very glad for the help.
I think Colin Powell was, by and large, spot on when he said:
That's a huge load. We've asked for *plenty*. We've asked for permanent military bases, we've asked for money and for troops to help us fight our unpopular wars.
Most of our military actions ever since Korea have been exceedingly unwelcome by the people of the countries we've invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked.
No, the world doesn't hate us for when we offer true assistance--they hate us when we assert our will on them. They hate us when *we* are responsible for death and destruction.
We're like the corrupt police who beat people and extort from the innocent. The people *hate* those police, and it's not because they are jealous, or because they are ungrateful for the times the police actually *do* protect them, it's for the times when the police abuse their power, and betray the public trust.
The world was *overwhelmingly* with us after 9/11. They were with us on Afghanistan. They listened to us make the case for Iraq, and then said, "No, you're wrong." We went ahead anyway, and it turns out we *were* wrong.
If, however, by some weird twist of fate, Iraq actually does become free, I guarantee it won't be America who gets the credit.
Sure we will. But that credit also comes with the cost of the war--how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will it have taken by the end?
Not to mention the fact that we are *directly* responsible for Saddam's party gaining power in Iraq long ago, and we supported Saddam when he was gassing people, which we now hypocritically condemn him for.
The world will certainly give us *all* the credit we are due, good and bad.
I would, however, like the administration to stop doing the more obvious boners that actually LEGITIMIZE the hatred of America overseas.
The current Iraq war isn't the beginning of American aggression in the world, it's just an extremely visible example. In other words, for many people, hatred of America was already legitimate.
"Right now there's no real space war "
What? Who said anything about a space war? You do understand the difference between war and weapons right? Currently, there there are no space based weapon systems....
Great deduction, Sherlock. That's what I meant.
Since 1998 we have known that China is developing a laser weapon that can take out our communication and intelligence satellites. See, the "game" is always going on, it never ends.
That's not the game I'm referring to. We're not talking about shooting down satellites, we're talking about shooting *from* satellites. No one has a space weapons platform--and the world's better off for it.
If we do not develop space weapon systems, someone else will.
Let them try! If they do, we'll shoot it down. If we can't, for some reason, we can put up 10x the firepower in 6 months.
On the other hand, right now, *NO ONE* is putting weapons in space. If we do it first, *we'll* have initiated an era of even greater threat to humanity. Better to put off that era as long as possible, isn't it?
You are saying that the French have moral authority because they did not take adequate steps to protect themselves? If that is the case, I would rather be free and immoral than moral and without my jewish friends.
That's not the case. You are practicing a favorite game of the neocons--pretend anyone who disagrees with you wants to be invaded by Hitler. It's sick.
Re-read what I wrote. I stated that the French were in the game, and they *didn't* act to defend themselves when they should have. The Nazis started that game. Right now *we're* starting a new one. That's very disturbing.
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." - David Letterman
Bash the French, it's so easy! That doesn't make it wise to start putting weapons in space. You do something like that in *response* to a threat. If you start it, *YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE THREAT*.
Besides that, I'd rather have a military that fights to win, not to be 'fair'.
Who said we had to fight to be "fair and not win"? That's ignorant tripe. There's no need, RIGHT NOW, to militarize space.
I suppose you imagine the Chinese space initiatives are based entirely on a desire to throw Peace and Love into orbit? Perhaps daisies?
Yeah, that's exactly what I think. I think China is planing to plant space-daisies to ensure world feng shui peace. DAMN I'm sick of neo-con strawmen. I fully realize that one of the primary reasons for putting men in space from a political level is that you can use the same technology to deliver nuclear bombs. The point is that there's *NO NEED* for us to start putting weapons into space at the moment. When the need arises, I won't argue against it.
The same sort of logic would have said 90 years ago - OMFG, what are we doing ARMING PLANES?
Lame. 90 years ago we were fighting a war with planes. When you're actually fighting a war, you've got to tool up. That's simple. We're not fighting a war, right now, where space weapons platforms are necessary, and the threat of such a war isn't even *remotely* reasonable. If we do it, it's just because we *can*, not because we *have to*.
Here's a little bit of a news flash: people hate us because we're on top of the world militarily, economically, and politically. It's envy, pure and simple.
"Anyone who doesn't like the leader is just jealous." Isn't that extremely simple-minded and conceited? So when you lot were mad at Clinton, you were just jealous? When we hated Germany and Japan during WWII, we were just jealous?
There are many motives for hatred, and "jealousy" is one of the feeblest.
People don't *hate* us because they envy us, they *hate* us because we go around killing them. Just look at South America. People really don't like having some jerks from thousands of miles away come and tell them what to do, and siphon away their natural resources. They *do* like a role model they can look up to, and who helps them.
Which do you think we are?
We keep creating the people we have to take down: Noriega, Saddam, Osama.
Who was it who was screaming so loudly for us to come and defend them when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Oh, yeah, the Saudis...the same lot that's demanding we leave their terroritory.
No, we lied and told the Saudis that Saddam was massing troops on his border with faked satellite photos. *They* didn't want us there at all. We also told Saddam it was alright if he wanted to invade Kuwait.
Remind me again why I'm supposed to give a damn whether or not the world likes us?
Are you purposefully being an ignorant fool? The world *used* to like us, and life was good. Now the Europeans are forming their own economic superpower, the Chinese are becoming powerful and would be good to keep as friends, and even our long-time friends in *this* hemisphere are telling us to take a hike.
How can you *possibly* think that not having true friends and allies is good for America?
"the only winning move is not to play the game".
Ask the French how effective this strategy was in 1940. Our foreign policy is what dertermines our 'worth' - but unchallengable military superiority ensures our freedom.
The French were in the game and didn't know it. It only takes *one* party to start a war. Right now there's no real space war going on. In other words, *no one* is playing the game. It's disgusting to think *we'd* be the ones to start the game.
WWII *is* a good example. We didn't start it, but we helped finish it. That's the way it should be. Starting down the path to war undermines ones moral authority.
I've got guns in my house. I use most of them for fetching various things to eat. I keep a couple of them around because I am morally in tune with the prospect of using them to defend my family. From your perspective, owning anything lethal makes you equal to a murderer.
That's incredibly simple-minded, and a *huge* bugaboo of the right. Any call for peace boils down to you can't protect your family!
How disgusting.
Do you not see a difference between owning a gun, and placing WMDs in space? Hmm?
Keep your gun, I really don't care. I think you live in a fantasy world if you think you need it to protect your family (that, or you live in a strangely dangerous place where home invasions are the norm--I mean, really! If someone stormed your house with a gun, do you think you'd reach your gun in time? lol).
On the other hand, do you think you ought to be able to keep a nuke in your house?
Right now, space is relatively unarmed. *If* China, Russia, whoever, started putting weapons up there, then we can give it a go. It's disturbing to hear Americans demand that *we* be first. Once we do it, the rest of the world will follow more quickly.
What's the fascination of the right with rushing to armageddon?
Placing weapons in space, I'm sure, is something a lot of Chinese and Russians would like to do. But it's quite expensive, and they've got other priorities right now. But if *we* do it, they'll be "forced" to follow suit.
If we found out that China, for example, was going to launch a nuclear space station, we would just go to the UN and demand a resolution to stop them, with the provision that we can shoot it down.
As it stands, the US (and *maybe* Russia--with our consent) is the only nation that could begin to seriously begin to militarize space. That day might be inevitable, but there's no reason to rush into the prospect!
the very nature of working in that environment (not to mention orbital mechanics and whatnot) means you have to be pro-active, not re-active.
*If* we wanted to militarize space, we could do it in two years without breaking a sweat. There's no hurry.
The tool/venue is, by definition not a moral issue. What you do is.
Right, actions are moral or immoral. Placing weapons in space is an action.
Face it... the only institution that can continue to pour money somewhere before it is profitable to do so is the military.
Absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. The Department of Education, for example, is not profitable. NASA isn't profitable. The Forestry Department isn't profitable. Amtrak isn't profitable. The Corporation for Public Broadcast isn't profitable. The UN isn't profitable (jokes aside).
And in case you're thinking being unprofitable is the sole domain of government, Amazon spent years being not-profitable, and businesses and government aside, there are plenty of non-profit organizations.
they may have plans for space-to-ground weapons that are not WMD
Kinetic weapons launched from space *are* WMDs.
Energy weapons, on the other hand, aren't quite "mass destruction", but carry their own problems--it only takes an extremely *miniscule* error in angle to go from taking out a power station to hitting a schoolyard a few miles away. But technically, they might be legal (like the "napalm" we're using in Iraq--it's not the "Napalm" brand, even though it's essentially the exact same (illegal) weapon).
It's not really a matter of choice
Yes, it is. We don't have to *choose* to deploy weapons now, and *that's* the choice some of us are making, poorly.
Will some nation eventually deploy weapons in space? I'd say there's a high liklihood.
Probably. It would be *stupid* to do it before it's necessary, though.
To me then, the question boils down to, do you want to be first or attempt to be second?
We're the USA, if someone starts to militarize space, we'll just knock their systems down. If they get a legitimate toe-hold in space, *then* we can jump in--it certainly won't take us long to dominate.
There's just no way a country would pre-emptively attack us from space without an overwhelming chance of victory. But if we begin to truly militarize space, then Russia and China (and India) will as well (unless we truly undertake to conquer the world, shudder). As we all build-up together, it will be far easier for the countries involved to put up enough firepower to launch (and even believe they can win) a first-strike.
No thanks!