Here in the Netherlands, for years already most payment in shops is done by pin (bankpass plus pin-code): in fact, some shopping chains are now talking of (and experimenting with) abolishing cash payment altogether.
So Google wallet really does not introduce anything new: for Europe at least.
For the US, who is decidely archaic in its monetary system, it might be new but that is only because the US is lagging behind the rest of the world in these things (many NW European countries abolished paper cheques ages ago for example - all money transfer is done electronically directly from account to account here).
When it comes to discussions with people in the Mac Cult, sadly enough many of the comments of the above type are meant to be serious. I am happy to hear that yours was only a joke.
We Dutch are known for riding bikes rather than Vespa's, but I'll concede that Bettie Serveert may indeed count as an obscure band.....
Because I don't define my identity by means of Operating System (because I find people who do that inherently sad), and hence am less narrow-minded (as well as having a PhD), I have to tell you that it is a name transcribed from another language and alphabet (Arabic), and hence different spellings can be used. You can spell it "Baghdad", "Bagdad" (it is usually spelled the latter in my country) and a number of other ways.
It has little to do with being elder. There is a whole cohort of digibetic younger people who call their slighty more computer-savy brother (me) as soon as things get more complicated than opening a Word document (and even then...)
The real reason is that interfaces are the products of what I call "ITistics", a special form of Autistics. Since 99% of the Slashdotters is ITistic, it is no surprise many here won't accept that pushing a plus-sign and in that way "adding an alarm clock" is ITistic (and indeed, autistic). For a programmer, used to thinking in modules and object oriented language, "adding" something makes sense. For "normal" people, it doesn't.
You see the same with geeks who insist that an OS or software with command-line language is superior to a point-and-click GUI. For an ITistic, it is certainly superior. For everybody else, it is not, as command-line operations are not intuitive at all, and it involves remembering a lot of different commands. Which the average non-ITistic doesn't want to: they just want to be able to operate something by pushing an option.
Of course, the typical slashdot geek will not get at all what I write above. Which only points out that ITism is a real cognitive affliction: they really will not see the problem.
Some data to show that the X37-B OTV-2 coverage of Tripoli is really not that much better than that of the "conventional" Keyhole optical and Lacrosse radar reconnaissance satellites:
Number of passes of US Reconnaissance satellites bringing Tripoli within sensor range for April 3rd, 2011:
The X37-B OTV-2 passes over Tripoli as well:
(43 degree inclination orbit)
X-37B OTV-2: 7 passes
Lacrosses with their orbital inclination of 50/57 degrees make as much passes per day as the X-37B with it's 43 degree orbital inclination. There really is no reason to think that the choosen inclination has anything to do with optimizing Libya coverage. The more so since the previous X-37B mission, which was before the Libya revolution started, also had an orbital inclination near 40 degrees.
As I mentioned in another comment, the choosen inclination most likely has to do with optimizing coverage by the US tracking facilities.
Sure, Libya had always been kind of a nuisance, but I assume there weren't that many spy satellites within range before
The KH-12 Keyholes USA 129, USA 161 and USA 186 all cover Libya, as do the Lacrosse high resolution SAR satellites Lacrosse 3, 4 and 5. Any satellite in LEO with an orbit with inclination > 35 degrees covers Libya. A satellite doesn't have to have an inclination similar to the latitude of Libya for that at all.
ANY satellite with an orbital inclination of at least 35 degrees will pass over Tripoli at least twice a day. I.e., the KH-12 Keyholes (USA 129, USA 161 and USA 186) in their polar orbits and the Lacrosses (3, 4 and 5) in their 50 and 57 degree orbits will do so as well. The X-37B is nothing special in that sense and there is really no reason to assume that Tripoli is the main surveillance target of the craft.
Nonsense! The whole orbit shifts over the day. Like any orbit with an inclination high enough to cover 43 degrees, it will visit that spot roughly twice a day on 1 to 3 subsequent orbital revolutions, depending on the altitude of the orbit.
As usual, quite some non-sense appears in some of the comments here about the orbit of the X-37B and it's "manoeuverability"
First: in terms of reconnaissance opportunities, a 43 degree orbit gives you no edge over a polar orbit. On the contrary, while a polar orbit brings any latitude within reach for reconnaissance, a 43 degree orbit does not as latitudes above 43 degree are less well covered (and far North or south latitudes aren't covered at all).
Note that for targets below 43 degree latitude, it really doesn't matter whether the satellite is in a 43 degree, 63 degree or 90 degree (polar) inclination orbit: all these orbits will bring such a target in reach, and the 43 degree orbit has no extra benefit compared to a 63 or 90 degree orbit.
So it is nonsense to think that the 43 degree inclination orbit has been chosen to have a "better" look on a target near 43 degree latitude. A 90 degree inclination orbit would cover such as target just as good.
Instead, the 43 degree inclination has probably been chosen to maximize coverage of the X-37B orbit by US tracking and control facilities. So, a very prozaic explanation connected to the experimental nature of the craft, and the fact that it frequently re-boosts (it has to: it is in a low orbit and hence subject to quick decay).
Another frequent non-sensical remark about the X-37B is that it supposedly would be "more manoeuverable" than the typical reconnaissance satellite: and somehow able to "quickly get over a target" if necessary. Again, this is a wrong view on how orbital dynamics and the dynamics of target coverage work. The X37-B might have wings and behave like an airplane in the atmosphere near landing: but in space, it is just a satellite subject to the same orbital laws as any other satellite. Like any satellite, it will cover any target within reach of the orbital inclination at least twice a day. And you just don't "steer" a spaceship to a target within an hour: it is not similar to flying an airplane (unlike suggestions in Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars). You change the orbital period and/or inclination and this determines when and how the satellite (X37-B in this case: but it is the same for any other satellite) will encounter a target, about twice a day.
Please note that, contrary to assumptions to the contrary often made, regular reconnaissance satellites like the Keyholes and Lacrosses frequently manoeuvre as well. They have to, to maintain their orbital constellation. Nothwithstanding this frequent manoeuvring (they do so multiple times a year) they stay operational for many, many years (Lacrosse 2 was finally de-orbited last week after being operational for 20 years, with very frequent manoeuvering during those 20 years). So the X37-B doesn't really have an edge in sense of "manoeuverability" over any other satellite, contrary to what many people seem to think. The frequent manoeuvres the craft makes are manoeuvres to maintain orbital altitude, and this has to do with the low orbit (= high drag, high decay) the craft is in. It are not manoeuvres to change the orbit to quickly target new targets. That idea, is simply wrong and originates with people who have no clue about orbital dynamics in space.
The only real edge the X-37B has over other satellites is that it enables you to sent up and then retrieve payloads. For the rest, it cannot do more than any conventional satellite can do.
Both images were taken with the same lens, on during an "average" size full moon, the other yesterday. While indeed notably bigger yesterday in comparison, it really isn't that impressive in absolute terms...
By the way, contrary to the opening lines of the Topic Poster, it is about once each 18 years, not 28 years.
How they dated it, indeed is the big question. These kind of things are notoriously difficult to date. If there is charcoal, bone or pottery in the pits used to socket the stones, you can date it (and then you still assume the materials in the pit date to the time of digging the pit, which is a dangerous assumption), but otherwise it is almost impossible. 26Al or 10Be dating of the stones itself will bring you no further either, as the surface residence of these stones can significantly predate their incorporation of them into this structure.
From the picture, this structure seems to be made up of rather small stones put on the surface and I doubt they were socketed in pits for that reason. So I would be very weary of that 10,000 year date unless it becomes clear how they arrived at that date.
IAAA (I Am An Archaeologist), by the way.
re the "dying out" of cultures, the commenters before me already answered that. Culture is not static, it changes over time, by definition. So does who is in power (and able to launch large community efforts like building pyramids). Prehistoric cultures without big building projects are gone too.
The two web-articles give no clue how they arrived at the 10,000 year bp date. Has the structure been radiometrically dated in some way? Or is it just a wild guess?
As others already commented, even in Europe there are megalith sites with possible sun/moon allignments that are older than Stonehenge, b.t.w.
There in fact already are a number of disposable e-mail generators which allow you to create a personalized address on the fly that forwards to your real e-mail.
Personally I use Gishpuppy (www.gishpuppy.com) for that several years now. They have a handy plugin for a.o. Firefox (http://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/gish-it/). Whenever I have to fill in an e-mail on a web form, it is a matter of right-clicking in the adres box on the form and voila, I can create a customized e-mail address on the fly, that I can either turn off when I want, or set to expire after a certain number of days or weeks.
The news-piece is missing a clear military purpose. Maybe because it focusses on destruction only. Military purpose involves more than destruction however.
One vital potential military use of the moon, is for intelligence gathering. This can be SIGINT or ELINT, or Radar and Optical imaging. Basically, you can see the moon as one big reconnaissance satellite. Put a powerfull radar on it, and you can image your enemies' assets. Put a powerfull listening antenna on it, and listen in on the coms and signals of your enemy. Basically, al those thing that are now done by diverse military satellites such as the Lacrosses, FIA, KeyHole, Mentor etc.
The edge the moon has over a satellite is that you can construct much larger antenna, larger optical apertures, than you can in space. In addition, if you put them on a manned base, you can service them.
The moon can in addition also play a role as a ginat communication satellite.
Those commenters who come with remarks suggesting the creation of a Pleistocene Park: in order to do so, you not only have to bring back some of the animals (such as mammoth in this case), but also the ecosystem/biotope in which they lived. And there's a snag: that ecosystem is extinct as well.
There is no place on earth today, not in the arctic either, which has the ecosystem/biotope corresponding to the Late Pleistocene "Mammoth Steppe". Our Holocene cold steppes and tundras are decidedly different in plant biomass and ecological structure.
In fact, that (and not human hunting) is likely why mammoths and whooly rhino, as well as a number of other Pleistocene animals that roamed the Mammoth Steppe, became extinct. Their biotope got extinct.
You are wrong: the Lacrosses and Keyholes can and occasionally do manoeuvre to change their inclination. It is one of the reasons why they usually manoeuvre when perigee coincides with nodal passage (in that way, the inclination can be changed with minimal power and fuel needed).
Inclination changes with these satellites usually are low though, for the simple reason that they are part of a fixed constellation of sister ships, so want to maintain their respective orbital positions with regard to each other. This is actually the very reason why they need to be able to and indeed do adjust their inclinations from time to time (as these otherwise would start to drift from the target inclinations).
The only benefits of a space plane are in the realm of what can be considered offensive military action
A space plane can be used to inspect and even retrieve enemy satellites. Inspecting foreign satellites can also be done with conventional satellites however, and the USA has satellites capable of this (the MiTex satellites, which they used to inspect a mal-functioning military early warning satellite, DSP-23, straying out of its designated orbit). So the only real advantage here is the option of retrieval.
Several classified reconnaisance satellites have been operational for up to 20 years (e.g. the Lacrosses) without a need for refueling or return to earth. This while they manoeuvre several times a year.
Lacrosse 2, a radar reconnaisance satellite, is still operational and was launched in 1991, 19 years ago. USA 129, a KH-12 Keyhole, is still operational and was launched in 1996, 14 years ago. All these manoeuvre several times a year.
The only real benefit from a space plane that you can land over an ordinary reconnaissance satellite, is that you periodically can upgrade the equipment. But then, you can alternatively just periodically launch a new upgraded version of a satellite (as has been done the past decades) and reach the same benefits in terms of reconnaissance.
So the question really is, what edge such a space-plane has over an ordinary satelite. It is clearly not the manoeuverability and refuelling.
The idea that the manoeuvring of the X-37B is somehow to the "dismay of ground observers" has popped up more often in the press recently.This is however some weird statement that is not founded on anything substantial. A lot of satellites, including classified satellites (e.g. the KH-12 Keyholes and the Lacrosse SAR satellites) frequently manoeuvre as well. The X-37B is not much different in that aspect. And for amateur satellite trackers, part of the fun of observing exactly is detecting such manoeuvres, and re-establishing the orbits. So no, not "to the dismay of ground observers": on the contrary!
One of the commenters below also claims that the X-37B:
you have a spy sat that can't be tracked easily
In truth, the X-37B is easy to track, as it is quite bright (naked eye object!).
Actually, all Mentor's previous to this one were and are positioned at longitudes covering West Asia and Africa. They do not cover US territory so far. We have reasons to believe this new one will not either.
Exactly! Working in the field of Human Evolution, I bump into creationist sentiments a lot, and most of it that is not from complete laypersons, comes from engineers. It suggests that engineers are for some reason easily taken in by ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the Netherlands, for years already most payment in shops is done by pin (bankpass plus pin-code): in fact, some shopping chains are now talking of (and experimenting with) abolishing cash payment altogether.
So Google wallet really does not introduce anything new: for Europe at least.
For the US, who is decidely archaic in its monetary system, it might be new but that is only because the US is lagging behind the rest of the world in these things (many NW European countries abolished paper cheques ages ago for example - all money transfer is done electronically directly from account to account here).
When it comes to discussions with people in the Mac Cult, sadly enough many of the comments of the above type are meant to be serious. I am happy to hear that yours was only a joke.
We Dutch are known for riding bikes rather than Vespa's, but I'll concede that Bettie Serveert may indeed count as an obscure band.....
Because I don't define my identity by means of Operating System (because I find people who do that inherently sad), and hence am less narrow-minded (as well as having a PhD), I have to tell you that it is a name transcribed from another language and alphabet (Arabic), and hence different spellings can be used. You can spell it "Baghdad", "Bagdad" (it is usually spelled the latter in my country) and a number of other ways.
It has little to do with being elder. There is a whole cohort of digibetic younger people who call their slighty more computer-savy brother (me) as soon as things get more complicated than opening a Word document (and even then...)
The real reason is that interfaces are the products of what I call "ITistics", a special form of Autistics. Since 99% of the Slashdotters is ITistic, it is no surprise many here won't accept that pushing a plus-sign and in that way "adding an alarm clock" is ITistic (and indeed, autistic). For a programmer, used to thinking in modules and object oriented language, "adding" something makes sense. For "normal" people, it doesn't.
You see the same with geeks who insist that an OS or software with command-line language is superior to a point-and-click GUI. For an ITistic, it is certainly superior. For everybody else, it is not, as command-line operations are not intuitive at all, and it involves remembering a lot of different commands. Which the average non-ITistic doesn't want to: they just want to be able to operate something by pushing an option.
Of course, the typical slashdot geek will not get at all what I write above. Which only points out that ITism is a real cognitive affliction: they really will not see the problem.
There are *no* tanks in Bagdad, I repeat: there are *no* tanks in Bagdad....
Some data to show that the X37-B OTV-2 coverage of Tripoli is really not that much better than that of the "conventional" Keyhole optical and Lacrosse radar reconnaissance satellites:
Number of passes of US Reconnaissance satellites bringing Tripoli within sensor range for April 3rd, 2011:
KH-12 Keyhole high-res optical satellites:
(97 degree inclination Polar orbit)
USA 186: 5 passes
USA 161: 3 passes
USA 129: 5 passes
Lacrosse high-res SAR satellites:
(50 & 57 degree inclination orbits)
Lacrosse 3: 8 passes
Lacrosse 4: 6 passes
Lacrosse 5: 7 passes
As you see, not quite a shortage of coverage.
The X37-B OTV-2 passes over Tripoli as well:
(43 degree inclination orbit)
X-37B OTV-2: 7 passes
Lacrosses with their orbital inclination of 50/57 degrees make as much passes per day as the X-37B with it's 43 degree orbital inclination. There really is no reason to think that the choosen inclination has anything to do with optimizing Libya coverage. The more so since the previous X-37B mission, which was before the Libya revolution started, also had an orbital inclination near 40 degrees.
As I mentioned in another comment, the choosen inclination most likely has to do with optimizing coverage by the US tracking facilities.
Sure, Libya had always been kind of a nuisance, but I assume there weren't that many spy satellites within range before
The KH-12 Keyholes USA 129, USA 161 and USA 186 all cover Libya, as do the Lacrosse high resolution SAR satellites Lacrosse 3, 4 and 5. Any satellite in LEO with an orbit with inclination > 35 degrees covers Libya. A satellite doesn't have to have an inclination similar to the latitude of Libya for that at all.
ANY satellite with an orbital inclination of at least 35 degrees will pass over Tripoli at least twice a day. I.e., the KH-12 Keyholes (USA 129, USA 161 and USA 186) in their polar orbits and the Lacrosses (3, 4 and 5) in their 50 and 57 degree orbits will do so as well. The X-37B is nothing special in that sense and there is really no reason to assume that Tripoli is the main surveillance target of the craft.
Nonsense! The whole orbit shifts over the day. Like any orbit with an inclination high enough to cover 43 degrees, it will visit that spot roughly twice a day on 1 to 3 subsequent orbital revolutions, depending on the altitude of the orbit.
As usual, quite some non-sense appears in some of the comments here about the orbit of the X-37B and it's "manoeuverability"
First: in terms of reconnaissance opportunities, a 43 degree orbit gives you no edge over a polar orbit. On the contrary, while a polar orbit brings any latitude within reach for reconnaissance, a 43 degree orbit does not as latitudes above 43 degree are less well covered (and far North or south latitudes aren't covered at all).
Note that for targets below 43 degree latitude, it really doesn't matter whether the satellite is in a 43 degree, 63 degree or 90 degree (polar) inclination orbit: all these orbits will bring such a target in reach, and the 43 degree orbit has no extra benefit compared to a 63 or 90 degree orbit.
So it is nonsense to think that the 43 degree inclination orbit has been chosen to have a "better" look on a target near 43 degree latitude. A 90 degree inclination orbit would cover such as target just as good.
Instead, the 43 degree inclination has probably been chosen to maximize coverage of the X-37B orbit by US tracking and control facilities. So, a very prozaic explanation connected to the experimental nature of the craft, and the fact that it frequently re-boosts (it has to: it is in a low orbit and hence subject to quick decay).
Another frequent non-sensical remark about the X-37B is that it supposedly would be "more manoeuverable" than the typical reconnaissance satellite: and somehow able to "quickly get over a target" if necessary. Again, this is a wrong view on how orbital dynamics and the dynamics of target coverage work. The X37-B might have wings and behave like an airplane in the atmosphere near landing: but in space, it is just a satellite subject to the same orbital laws as any other satellite. Like any satellite, it will cover any target within reach of the orbital inclination at least twice a day. And you just don't "steer" a spaceship to a target within an hour: it is not similar to flying an airplane (unlike suggestions in Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars). You change the orbital period and/or inclination and this determines when and how the satellite (X37-B in this case: but it is the same for any other satellite) will encounter a target, about twice a day.
Please note that, contrary to assumptions to the contrary often made, regular reconnaissance satellites like the Keyholes and Lacrosses frequently manoeuvre as well. They have to, to maintain their orbital constellation. Nothwithstanding this frequent manoeuvring (they do so multiple times a year) they stay operational for many, many years (Lacrosse 2 was finally de-orbited last week after being operational for 20 years, with very frequent manoeuvering during those 20 years). So the X37-B doesn't really have an edge in sense of "manoeuverability" over any other satellite, contrary to what many people seem to think. The frequent manoeuvres the craft makes are manoeuvres to maintain orbital altitude, and this has to do with the low orbit (= high drag, high decay) the craft is in. It are not manoeuvres to change the orbit to quickly target new targets. That idea, is simply wrong and originates with people who have no clue about orbital dynamics in space.
The only real edge the X-37B has over other satellites is that it enables you to sent up and then retrieve payloads. For the rest, it cannot do more than any conventional satellite can do.
By the way, contrary to the opening lines of the Topic Poster, it is about once each 18 years, not 28 years.
A picture of what it amounts to in size difference here:
http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-19-2011-super-full-moon.html
Both images were taken with the same lens, on during an "average" size full moon, the other yesterday. While indeed notably bigger yesterday in comparison, it really isn't that impressive in absolute terms...
By the way, contrary to the opening lines of the Topic Poster, it is about once each 18 years, not 28 years.
...stipulate they tip animals, not cows....
How they dated it, indeed is the big question. These kind of things are notoriously difficult to date. If there is charcoal, bone or pottery in the pits used to socket the stones, you can date it (and then you still assume the materials in the pit date to the time of digging the pit, which is a dangerous assumption), but otherwise it is almost impossible. 26Al or 10Be dating of the stones itself will bring you no further either, as the surface residence of these stones can significantly predate their incorporation of them into this structure.
From the picture, this structure seems to be made up of rather small stones put on the surface and I doubt they were socketed in pits for that reason. So I would be very weary of that 10,000 year date unless it becomes clear how they arrived at that date.
IAAA (I Am An Archaeologist), by the way.
re the "dying out" of cultures, the commenters before me already answered that. Culture is not static, it changes over time, by definition. So does who is in power (and able to launch large community efforts like building pyramids). Prehistoric cultures without big building projects are gone too.
The two web-articles give no clue how they arrived at the 10,000 year bp date. Has the structure been radiometrically dated in some way? Or is it just a wild guess?
As others already commented, even in Europe there are megalith sites with possible sun/moon allignments that are older than Stonehenge, b.t.w.
There in fact already are a number of disposable e-mail generators which allow you to create a personalized address on the fly that forwards to your real e-mail.
Personally I use Gishpuppy (www.gishpuppy.com) for that several years now. They have a handy plugin for a.o. Firefox (http://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/gish-it/). Whenever I have to fill in an e-mail on a web form, it is a matter of right-clicking in the adres box on the form and voila, I can create a customized e-mail address on the fly, that I can either turn off when I want, or set to expire after a certain number of days or weeks.
The news-piece is missing a clear military purpose. Maybe because it focusses on destruction only. Military purpose involves more than destruction however.
One vital potential military use of the moon, is for intelligence gathering. This can be SIGINT or ELINT, or Radar and Optical imaging. Basically, you can see the moon as one big reconnaissance satellite. Put a powerfull radar on it, and you can image your enemies' assets. Put a powerfull listening antenna on it, and listen in on the coms and signals of your enemy. Basically, al those thing that are now done by diverse military satellites such as the Lacrosses, FIA, KeyHole, Mentor etc.
The edge the moon has over a satellite is that you can construct much larger antenna, larger optical apertures, than you can in space. In addition, if you put them on a manned base, you can service them.
The moon can in addition also play a role as a ginat communication satellite.
Those commenters who come with remarks suggesting the creation of a Pleistocene Park: in order to do so, you not only have to bring back some of the animals (such as mammoth in this case), but also the ecosystem/biotope in which they lived. And there's a snag: that ecosystem is extinct as well.
There is no place on earth today, not in the arctic either, which has the ecosystem/biotope corresponding to the Late Pleistocene "Mammoth Steppe". Our Holocene cold steppes and tundras are decidedly different in plant biomass and ecological structure.
In fact, that (and not human hunting) is likely why mammoths and whooly rhino, as well as a number of other Pleistocene animals that roamed the Mammoth Steppe, became extinct. Their biotope got extinct.
You are wrong: the Lacrosses and Keyholes can and occasionally do manoeuvre to change their inclination. It is one of the reasons why they usually manoeuvre when perigee coincides with nodal passage (in that way, the inclination can be changed with minimal power and fuel needed).
Inclination changes with these satellites usually are low though, for the simple reason that they are part of a fixed constellation of sister ships, so want to maintain their respective orbital positions with regard to each other. This is actually the very reason why they need to be able to and indeed do adjust their inclinations from time to time (as these otherwise would start to drift from the target inclinations).
The only benefits of a space plane are in the realm of what can be considered offensive military action
A space plane can be used to inspect and even retrieve enemy satellites. Inspecting foreign satellites can also be done with conventional satellites however, and the USA has satellites capable of this (the MiTex satellites, which they used to inspect a mal-functioning military early warning satellite, DSP-23, straying out of its designated orbit). So the only real advantage here is the option of retrieval.
Several classified reconnaisance satellites have been operational for up to 20 years (e.g. the Lacrosses) without a need for refueling or return to earth. This while they manoeuvre several times a year.
Lacrosse 2, a radar reconnaisance satellite, is still operational and was launched in 1991, 19 years ago. USA 129, a KH-12 Keyhole, is still operational and was launched in 1996, 14 years ago. All these manoeuvre several times a year.
The only real benefit from a space plane that you can land over an ordinary reconnaissance satellite, is that you periodically can upgrade the equipment. But then, you can alternatively just periodically launch a new upgraded version of a satellite (as has been done the past decades) and reach the same benefits in terms of reconnaissance.
So the question really is, what edge such a space-plane has over an ordinary satelite. It is clearly not the manoeuverability and refuelling.
What do you mean by "can't easily be tracked"? In fact the X-37B is an easy object to track: it is quite bright, attaining easy naked eye brightness.
One of the commenters below also claims that the X-37B:
you have a spy sat that can't be tracked easily
In truth, the X-37B is easy to track, as it is quite bright (naked eye object!).
Actually, all Mentor's previous to this one were and are positioned at longitudes covering West Asia and Africa. They do not cover US territory so far. We have reasons to believe this new one will not either.
Exactly! Working in the field of Human Evolution, I bump into creationist sentiments a lot, and most of it that is not from complete laypersons, comes from engineers. It suggests that engineers are for some reason easily taken in by ideology.