I've thought for a long time ISPs have no business providing add-on services like usenet, e-mail, or website hosting. There are dozens, if not hundreds of alternative places to find those services.
All I want out of my ISP is to give me a connection. It pains me when I think of how much of my monthly fee is paying for those resources at my ISP that I never use. 5 free e-mail addresses? I'll have a new ISP in 12 months...I'll stick with the emails I've had for the last seven years. Free 'personal' webpage? I'll go to geocities or at least pay a few bucks. Usenet? I'm sure there are plenty of services out there.
My point is, what business does the ISP have in providing news service anyways? I'm just pissed that @home is doing it because Industry nazis are on their back, instead of doing it because it's not really their job.
You've proved my point. Loan companies can't do those things, nor can mortgage companies because of the violations to your rights. But the above mentioned post suggested that, in the name of 'protecting assets', so as long as it's in the contract, it's OK.
Of course it's not OK. We would'nt allow a lease company, even if in a contract, to install cameras in your apartment to protect their 'assets' because it's wrong. So is this GPS deal.
I have a couple of issues with your post. The first is the tone. While I'm going to guess this was an attempt to provide a defence, it seems to echo a unsettling sentiment being shared by more and more companies: We assume all of our customers are crooks.
Of course, this bothers me. I rent cars on a pretty frequent basis. When I was under 25 I was deeply frustrated in trying to find a company to rent to me. I don't excessivly speed, I don't drive recklessly... and I try to take care of rental cars as if they were my own. I would think that the majority of people share my views. Yes, there are a few bad apples, and yes I would agree that a company should take reasonable efforts to protect their assests against loss and damage by those people.
But I would submit the actions taken by ACME rental company goes to far. This seems less of an effort protect assests then to make quick cash. When the rental company sells it's vechicles at the end of thier useful life as a rental, do they disclose items like average speed or how many times and how often they bring the vehicle above 90? Somehow I doubt this. Do you suppose they send monthly reports to their insurance provider stating 'Our fleet was brought over 90mph 393 times this past month. We collected over $58,000. Please raise our rates accordingly'?
But what really scares me is this: As a private citizen, I believe that this level of detailed monitoring would be inappropiate for privately owned property that you own - i.e., the government should not be allowed to do this.
I don't own my car outright. A finance company owns it. By your logic, until I make the last payment, the finance company is in the right to install monitoring devices to 'protect' it's assests. Or, taking it a step further, a mortgage company (or in my case, the property management company I currently rent from) is perfectly justified to install cameras in my home to make sure I don't smoke in bed, throw wild partys, or do anything else that might damage 'their' property.
Don't get me wrong. From a purly contractual viewpoint, I don't see this man as having any recourse; he signed a contract, and is therefore bound by it. My problem is that something like this should'nt be legally allowed into a contract in the first place.
On a side note, I do quite a bit of business in the state of Arizona. I typically make my rental car reservation at the same time I book my flight. I don't suppose you'd be willing to let me know what company you work for...I'd hate to waste time at the airport trying to find another company after landing.
In this case, I think the distinction between fair use and trying to profit off Joe Cartoon in a underhanded way were obvious.
But as cases like this become decided, those who have less then nobel goals will ride that line far closer.
What if, for example, they developed a well constructed critique of Joe Cartoon before going live, which sat along side the banner ads and pop-ups. Our best guess is the intent would still have been to profit off the mispelling.
But the owner of the rogue sites could just as easily say the intent was to provide commentary or satire, and simply added the advertisments just as many other commerical websites use agressive advertising to cover expenses. Using advertisments to suppliment the cost of content in and of itself is not illegal.
I see us reaching a very fine line between nefarious misuse of typo squatting and legitiment free speech. How are we going to end up deciding if a site's advertisments are secondary to it's content, or the otherway around. The law's only recourse is to employ common sense on a case by case basis . . . but how often does that happen?
Where does the difference lie between a 'typo' and a fair use parody. If I registered a domain called 'lashdot.org' that hosted a site intended to poke fun and 'lashout' at the slashdot community, could Andover claim I was typo squatting?
Who gets to decide what is a legit take-off, and what is an attempt to simply direct traffic to their own site?
Nurses in the ER room receiving a 'kick-back' for reporting you to the cable company, so when you return to your home after an accident your TV is flooded with 'personal injury attorney' advertising.
The computer at the local 7-11 stores your ATM card and discovers your preference for 'Camel' cigarettes. This information is sold, and since your over 18, you suddenly see ads for the rich, smooth taste of Marlboro.
The big company you work for just laid off 4,000 people, you included. To help costs, they sell a list of canned employees to the cable company. The night you come home, pink slip in hand, the regular ads you see for cars and softdrinks are replaced by 'get rich quick' tapes and jingles for DeVry.
Your 29, single, drive a used car, don't own or plan to buy any major electronics, cook your own food, don't go out, don't travel, and aside from your cable subscription, don't spend much money on anything. You let the cable company know this, and despite your generous salery, all the shows you like to watch get cancled.
I travel in my car... a lot. The city I'm based out of has a handful of stations, that typically stink. Get 60-80 miles away and there is nothing but country, religious, and spanish speaking to be found on the airwaves (and even then, in mountian areas, you still can't get a clean signal).
My understanding is, this will be simular to the audio services offered from DSS (but with more stations and commericals). If this is the case, I'll be in heaven. I like the idea of being able to turn to different genres of music at any time, to my own whim.
I just hope I don't spend a few hundred bucks on the equipment, only to have the company go bust in 6 months.
The viewpoint that phone booths are dying out is crap. It illustrates a small-minded outlook on life, from someone who has never known anything other than upper-class living.
If we consider the growth of cell phones in the last 5-10 years, from toys of the super rich to commonplace items of the average person, it's not unreasionable to think that in the next 10 years, the technology will be so cheap, even the poorest of poor can afford them. (Heck, I can buy a disposable cell phone down at the 7-11 now.)
As prices continue to go down, and coverage goes up, everyone will have a cell phone. Even the most disadvantaged who plunk down $10 for a phone card today will most likely be able to plunk down $10 for a phone with a pre-set number of minutes on it in 5 years.
As for those who don't want a cell phone... That's going to be harder and harder to do. At best, you'll just be able to leave it at home.
Most importantly, where will Superman change?
Public Toilets. I know, it's sad, but he's got to keep up with the times.
Go to some underground cracking site like 'astalavista'. Nearly every popular peice of software has key generators you can download.
Now, when you buy the rights to distribute renewal keys, you own them. What's so hard about finding a pretty talented cracker, pay him $10k to write one for you? I don't think it's illegal to develop a crack for software you already own the rights to. Then it really does'nt matter whats left rotting in a warehouse.
Now get a programmer to write a script that can execute the code generator on a secured server, and viola! You've got a pretty nifty software renual business with virtually zero overhead.
So, does this mean that those probes we sent out many years ago with scores of data scored on laser discs to be read by intellegent life are going to loose all that data before they reach any another solar system?
On a philosophical level, sure. I'll concede that point. And there are some questions that the Matrix asks about being able to control the root of our reality (in multiple understandings of that word).
But in my mind I'll still see that movie as an exploration of our perception of reality. For me, that's what made the movie good (that and the nicely done special effects); A more polished and less obtuse 'Altered States' that replaces psychologists with hackers.
Once again, it's a matter of perspective, and what you got out of the movie. (It should be noted that I'm not a hacker, nor have done any hacking since the days of college years ago.. So I'm still going off the image of the hero in War Games (only with more acne and a much heftier girlfreind as the stereotype).
Sorry.. your right. It's been a while since I've seen the movie.
What stuck in my mind was the sillyness of it all. "Oh, That's Unix. I know that". Yeah, shes not a hacker, just somebody that knows some sort of X based file management system.
If I'm going to be totally off on this, can I bring up 'Wayne's World', where Garth meets the woman of his dreams, and we hear the line 'Hey, is that a Unix book?'.
If you go that far, what about Jurrasic Park? There we have a pre-teen girl is able to circumvent the security systems on the park's networked computers.
I think there lies a difference in interpretation (and I'm not saying either is any more valid). I liked Croenberg's eXistenZ (and I think I'm the only one who did). And I liked the Matrix. Nonetheless, I don't see either as being neccescarly about Hacking or Programming.
In both cases, the existance of computer hackers or programmers sets the stage; it does not become the focus of the movie.
Yes, the 'Matrix' is a giant artifical envrionment existing in code designed by AI, and yes, the chracters can 'alter' that code. But the crux of the movie is'nt so much how they do it, it's that they exist in a world where they can.
To put it another way, if somebody who was outside the computing culture was interested in seeing a film that desribed what a hacker is/does, how accurate a reading do you think they would find in 'The Matrix'?
It just seems that there is a confusion between movies about hackers and movies that are likely to appeal to hackers (again, look at 'Real Genius'
Real Genius? Sure, a good movie. But about hackers? No. It was more one of those comedy 'cool nerd' romps, only slightly less slapstick then 'Revenge of the Nerds'. To say this movie is about hackers is a bit of a stretch.
The Net? Ok, yeah, it was about people who used computers to undermine a persons life. But why tout that one when the underated 'Enemy of the State' is by far better and is loosly the same thing (not to mention a poor sequal to the wonderful but forgoton 'The Conversation' with Gene Hackman').
And when I think about it, yeah, I guess the Matrix starts out with characters who are 'hackers', but the movie is really more of a sci-fi thriller about alternate realities. To say the Matrix is about hackers is as realistic as saying 'eXistance' is about video game programmers.
Chances are first the explorers will come. We will celebrate, sing and dance with them to welcome them. They will fly back to their home planet and tell them about how we are a freindly but savage planet.
Then a mix of colonists and missionarys will show up next. Many of us who do not belive in their alien philosophies and religion will be killed. This won't be a hudge problem, since most of us will automatically assume since they have all this high tech stuff, they must have a more advanced faith system (They may even slightly modify their religion to make it more familure to us).
They will want to settle on our resource rich land. Most of the time they will be able to trade our land in exchange for elabroatly dectorated peices of green paper and shiny chunks of gold. If we refuse they will take it by force. We will fight them, but ultmatly loose because they will have more advanced weapons.
Ultimatly humans will be deemed to simple and savage to run the planet, and we will be forced en masse with others of our country to relocate to bits of other, less desirable planets.
The good news is, in a few hundred years we can open up space casinos.
I'd love for you to come and give my company an audit. 'Of course, Microsoft, I will gladly spend the manhours and resources required to demonstrate complience.'
Now that you've killed tens of thousands of dollars our of our tech budget, I can convince the boss to migrate to Linux. Everybody wins!
Here in Arizona I've been watching with some amusement (though mostly annoyance) how sports broadcasts are distributed.
In the Fall, they will not broadcast the local football team locally, or on cable. Your only option to view the game is in person, at a sports bar, or using the Sunday Ticket on the sat. These are the options for me to view a game that is being played less then a mile from my apartment. I can, however, listen to the game live on the net, or watch games from other parts of the country on TV. (But somehow it looses something when I can hear fireworks outside my window and then wait 45 seconds or so to find out what happened on the net broadcast).
Now that it's basketball season, I can watch most away games on broadcast TV, but can only see home games if I subsribe to cable (home games are shown on a special Cox channel). Any other broadcast is blocked out, meaning if I have Sat and they are showing the game on TNT, TNT will be blocked for three hours. It costs money to hear it on the net.
The result: more often then not, I find my self chatting with people from other states to find out how my home town teams are doing. Somehow I'm missing the logic of pro-sports marketers here.
I did'nt know this was wrong. I'll disconnect all of my computers from my DSL line that I use for casual surfing and file sharing right away.
This will make my internet experience boring, so to spice it up I'll start using that bandwith to the max and download scads of porn and warez to my only remaining computer.
*whew* that was a close one.
Not being an Austrialian, I was wondering what, if any, options does the Austrailian citizen have to change his/her nation's laws, and what if any laws does the country have to protect issues of free speech?
In America, we have these rights constitutionaly protected (in theory, at least). We have a number of groups (ACLU, for example) dedicated to fighting for those rights. On the political frount, what do you Aussies have? Just curious.
Of course, a lot of the cost comparisons change the bigger you get. But for a small orginization (say 10-20 users), with the need for a file/print server, a single NT box with one person running it does just dandy.
I should mention that besides all of my other work, I manage a NT server which at best requires about 2 hours a week to maintain.
From time to time, I am given the task of making recomendations for small and medium sized orginizations. I tell them to use NT.
Often I will hear this: "What about Linux? I hear it's better then NT". I have to explain to them that it is better, but it will cost them too much. Any trained monkey with a community college degree in computer science can keep NT running (albeit not with the relibility of Linux). But it costs a lot more to find a Linux system admin who knows what he/she are doing.
So the question is, do you want to pay for an NT site licence and $30,000 a year for a decent NT admin, or do you want to get a free OS and have to pay $60,000 a year to a good Linux admin to make sure it's run right? Oh, and did I mention, your good Linux administrator will not want to be bothered with servicing the users' windows machines?
And of course, speaking of the users. I manage quite a few remote user machines. I would never recommend putting Linux on those machines. I'd spend all my time trying to teach the users how to do things all over again.
The thing is, Windows is EASY. People understand when something goes wrong, you just restart it. Something breaks badly, I just backup the important files and reload everything off a disk image. Sure, Linux doesn't break as much, it's more secure, it's more stable, and is great for mission critical applications, but unless you really have a genuine need for that type of reliability, Windows will always win.
While I sometimes question the accuracy of Ananova, they are reporting that Iraq has two nuclear weapons at their disposal.
The rules are changing. We can basically bomb a nation (Iraq) into the stone age, and somehow a few years later they have the bomb. Security is not what it used to be. Everything is a threat.
I'm glad the military is looking at how technology can be used in the future of wargames. The more and more simulations they do the better prepared we can be for situations like this.
And it seems only fair to assume that we would eventually have to have a 'space-corps', as the space installations of the future will have as much stratigic importance then our factories and military installations do here on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thought for a long time ISPs have no business providing add-on services like usenet, e-mail, or website hosting. There are dozens, if not hundreds of alternative places to find those services.
All I want out of my ISP is to give me a connection. It pains me when I think of how much of my monthly fee is paying for those resources at my ISP that I never use. 5 free e-mail addresses? I'll have a new ISP in 12 months...I'll stick with the emails I've had for the last seven years. Free 'personal' webpage? I'll go to geocities or at least pay a few bucks. Usenet? I'm sure there are plenty of services out there.
My point is, what business does the ISP have in providing news service anyways? I'm just pissed that @home is doing it because Industry nazis are on their back, instead of doing it because it's not really their job.
Of course it's not OK. We would'nt allow a lease company, even if in a contract, to install cameras in your apartment to protect their 'assets' because it's wrong. So is this GPS deal.
Of course, this bothers me. I rent cars on a pretty frequent basis. When I was under 25 I was deeply frustrated in trying to find a company to rent to me. I don't excessivly speed, I don't drive recklessly... and I try to take care of rental cars as if they were my own. I would think that the majority of people share my views. Yes, there are a few bad apples, and yes I would agree that a company should take reasonable efforts to protect their assests against loss and damage by those people.
But I would submit the actions taken by ACME rental company goes to far. This seems less of an effort protect assests then to make quick cash. When the rental company sells it's vechicles at the end of thier useful life as a rental, do they disclose items like average speed or how many times and how often they bring the vehicle above 90? Somehow I doubt this. Do you suppose they send monthly reports to their insurance provider stating 'Our fleet was brought over 90mph 393 times this past month. We collected over $58,000. Please raise our rates accordingly'?
But what really scares me is this: As a private citizen, I believe that this level of detailed monitoring would be inappropiate for privately owned property that you own - i.e., the government should not be allowed to do this.
I don't own my car outright. A finance company owns it. By your logic, until I make the last payment, the finance company is in the right to install monitoring devices to 'protect' it's assests. Or, taking it a step further, a mortgage company (or in my case, the property management company I currently rent from) is perfectly justified to install cameras in my home to make sure I don't smoke in bed, throw wild partys, or do anything else that might damage 'their' property.
Don't get me wrong. From a purly contractual viewpoint, I don't see this man as having any recourse; he signed a contract, and is therefore bound by it. My problem is that something like this should'nt be legally allowed into a contract in the first place.
On a side note, I do quite a bit of business in the state of Arizona. I typically make my rental car reservation at the same time I book my flight. I don't suppose you'd be willing to let me know what company you work for...I'd hate to waste time at the airport trying to find another company after landing.
But as cases like this become decided, those who have less then nobel goals will ride that line far closer.
What if, for example, they developed a well constructed critique of Joe Cartoon before going live, which sat along side the banner ads and pop-ups. Our best guess is the intent would still have been to profit off the mispelling.
But the owner of the rogue sites could just as easily say the intent was to provide commentary or satire, and simply added the advertisments just as many other commerical websites use agressive advertising to cover expenses. Using advertisments to suppliment the cost of content in and of itself is not illegal.
I see us reaching a very fine line between nefarious misuse of typo squatting and legitiment free speech. How are we going to end up deciding if a site's advertisments are secondary to it's content, or the otherway around. The law's only recourse is to employ common sense on a case by case basis . . . but how often does that happen?
Who gets to decide what is a legit take-off, and what is an attempt to simply direct traffic to their own site?
The computer at the local 7-11 stores your ATM card and discovers your preference for 'Camel' cigarettes. This information is sold, and since your over 18, you suddenly see ads for the rich, smooth taste of Marlboro.
The big company you work for just laid off 4,000 people, you included. To help costs, they sell a list of canned employees to the cable company. The night you come home, pink slip in hand, the regular ads you see for cars and softdrinks are replaced by 'get rich quick' tapes and jingles for DeVry.
Your 29, single, drive a used car, don't own or plan to buy any major electronics, cook your own food, don't go out, don't travel, and aside from your cable subscription, don't spend much money on anything. You let the cable company know this, and despite your generous salery, all the shows you like to watch get cancled.
Senitor Strom Therman "This appitizer is actually keeping me awake. Very good!"
Rock Star Jewel. "MMMMMMMMM!!!"
Actor Kirk Cameron. "Please hire me. My agent said this was better then Hollywood Squares, but now I'm not so sure".
My understanding is, this will be simular to the audio services offered from DSS (but with more stations and commericals). If this is the case, I'll be in heaven. I like the idea of being able to turn to different genres of music at any time, to my own whim.
I just hope I don't spend a few hundred bucks on the equipment, only to have the company go bust in 6 months.
If we consider the growth of cell phones in the last 5-10 years, from toys of the super rich to commonplace items of the average person, it's not unreasionable to think that in the next 10 years, the technology will be so cheap, even the poorest of poor can afford them. (Heck, I can buy a disposable cell phone down at the 7-11 now.)
As prices continue to go down, and coverage goes up, everyone will have a cell phone. Even the most disadvantaged who plunk down $10 for a phone card today will most likely be able to plunk down $10 for a phone with a pre-set number of minutes on it in 5 years.
As for those who don't want a cell phone... That's going to be harder and harder to do. At best, you'll just be able to leave it at home.
Most importantly, where will Superman change?
Public Toilets. I know, it's sad, but he's got to keep up with the times.
Now, when you buy the rights to distribute renewal keys, you own them. What's so hard about finding a pretty talented cracker, pay him $10k to write one for you? I don't think it's illegal to develop a crack for software you already own the rights to. Then it really does'nt matter whats left rotting in a warehouse.
Now get a programmer to write a script that can execute the code generator on a secured server, and viola! You've got a pretty nifty software renual business with virtually zero overhead.
Or do things just not deteriorate in space?
But in my mind I'll still see that movie as an exploration of our perception of reality. For me, that's what made the movie good (that and the nicely done special effects); A more polished and less obtuse 'Altered States' that replaces psychologists with hackers.
Once again, it's a matter of perspective, and what you got out of the movie. (It should be noted that I'm not a hacker, nor have done any hacking since the days of college years ago.. So I'm still going off the image of the hero in War Games (only with more acne and a much heftier girlfreind as the stereotype).
What stuck in my mind was the sillyness of it all. "Oh, That's Unix. I know that". Yeah, shes not a hacker, just somebody that knows some sort of X based file management system.
If I'm going to be totally off on this, can I bring up 'Wayne's World', where Garth meets the woman of his dreams, and we hear the line 'Hey, is that a Unix book?'.
"Hey, I know this! This is Unix!"
amazing.
In both cases, the existance of computer hackers or programmers sets the stage; it does not become the focus of the movie.
Yes, the 'Matrix' is a giant artifical envrionment existing in code designed by AI, and yes, the chracters can 'alter' that code. But the crux of the movie is'nt so much how they do it, it's that they exist in a world where they can.
To put it another way, if somebody who was outside the computing culture was interested in seeing a film that desribed what a hacker is/does, how accurate a reading do you think they would find in 'The Matrix'?
It just seems that there is a confusion between movies about hackers and movies that are likely to appeal to hackers (again, look at 'Real Genius'
The Net? Ok, yeah, it was about people who used computers to undermine a persons life. But why tout that one when the underated 'Enemy of the State' is by far better and is loosly the same thing (not to mention a poor sequal to the wonderful but forgoton 'The Conversation' with Gene Hackman').
And when I think about it, yeah, I guess the Matrix starts out with characters who are 'hackers', but the movie is really more of a sci-fi thriller about alternate realities. To say the Matrix is about hackers is as realistic as saying 'eXistance' is about video game programmers.
Then a mix of colonists and missionarys will show up next. Many of us who do not belive in their alien philosophies and religion will be killed. This won't be a hudge problem, since most of us will automatically assume since they have all this high tech stuff, they must have a more advanced faith system (They may even slightly modify their religion to make it more familure to us).
They will want to settle on our resource rich land. Most of the time they will be able to trade our land in exchange for elabroatly dectorated peices of green paper and shiny chunks of gold. If we refuse they will take it by force. We will fight them, but ultmatly loose because they will have more advanced weapons.
Ultimatly humans will be deemed to simple and savage to run the planet, and we will be forced en masse with others of our country to relocate to bits of other, less desirable planets.
The good news is, in a few hundred years we can open up space casinos.
Now that you've killed tens of thousands of dollars our of our tech budget, I can convince the boss to migrate to Linux. Everybody wins!
In the Fall, they will not broadcast the local football team locally, or on cable. Your only option to view the game is in person, at a sports bar, or using the Sunday Ticket on the sat. These are the options for me to view a game that is being played less then a mile from my apartment. I can, however, listen to the game live on the net, or watch games from other parts of the country on TV. (But somehow it looses something when I can hear fireworks outside my window and then wait 45 seconds or so to find out what happened on the net broadcast).
Now that it's basketball season, I can watch most away games on broadcast TV, but can only see home games if I subsribe to cable (home games are shown on a special Cox channel). Any other broadcast is blocked out, meaning if I have Sat and they are showing the game on TNT, TNT will be blocked for three hours. It costs money to hear it on the net.
The result: more often then not, I find my self chatting with people from other states to find out how my home town teams are doing. Somehow I'm missing the logic of pro-sports marketers here.
I did'nt know this was wrong. I'll disconnect all of my computers from my DSL line that I use for casual surfing and file sharing right away. This will make my internet experience boring, so to spice it up I'll start using that bandwith to the max and download scads of porn and warez to my only remaining computer. *whew* that was a close one.
In America, we have these rights constitutionaly protected (in theory, at least). We have a number of groups (ACLU, for example) dedicated to fighting for those rights. On the political frount, what do you Aussies have? Just curious.
For real fun, try the Iron Chef Drinking Experience.
Of course, a lot of the cost comparisons change the bigger you get. But for a small orginization (say 10-20 users), with the need for a file/print server, a single NT box with one person running it does just dandy. I should mention that besides all of my other work, I manage a NT server which at best requires about 2 hours a week to maintain.
Often I will hear this: "What about Linux? I hear it's better then NT". I have to explain to them that it is better, but it will cost them too much. Any trained monkey with a community college degree in computer science can keep NT running (albeit not with the relibility of Linux). But it costs a lot more to find a Linux system admin who knows what he/she are doing.
So the question is, do you want to pay for an NT site licence and $30,000 a year for a decent NT admin, or do you want to get a free OS and have to pay $60,000 a year to a good Linux admin to make sure it's run right? Oh, and did I mention, your good Linux administrator will not want to be bothered with servicing the users' windows machines?
And of course, speaking of the users. I manage quite a few remote user machines. I would never recommend putting Linux on those machines. I'd spend all my time trying to teach the users how to do things all over again.
The thing is, Windows is EASY. People understand when something goes wrong, you just restart it. Something breaks badly, I just backup the important files and reload everything off a disk image. Sure, Linux doesn't break as much, it's more secure, it's more stable, and is great for mission critical applications, but unless you really have a genuine need for that type of reliability, Windows will always win.
While I sometimes question the accuracy of Ananova, they are reporting that Iraq has two nuclear weapons at their disposal. The rules are changing. We can basically bomb a nation (Iraq) into the stone age, and somehow a few years later they have the bomb. Security is not what it used to be. Everything is a threat. I'm glad the military is looking at how technology can be used in the future of wargames. The more and more simulations they do the better prepared we can be for situations like this. And it seems only fair to assume that we would eventually have to have a 'space-corps', as the space installations of the future will have as much stratigic importance then our factories and military installations do here on Earth.