So tell me, if I worship Jesus and it turns out he was just one of Allah's prophets, does he waive the "no other gods before me" clause? And if Jesus is divine but I worship Allah and deny that he was anything but a man, does Jesus forgive the mistake?
Yes, in both theoretical cases. I even go so far as to say that, if you are a good person as-judged-by-God, you'll do fine. God is not a judge enforcing someone else's rules, he's an all-knowing creator. The Almighty can and does bend the rules, and allow for truly extenuating circumstances. After all, He really does know everything. (And if "he" doesn't, then we're talking to a schmuck trying to scam us--and so we should look for God elsewhere. Maybe playing skeeball.)
Saying that Allah and Jehovah are the same bloke is fine if you're talking about the mythologic tradition, but as a practical matter it doesn't quite work out.
Practical matter? Do you mean spirtually, or temporally?
Temporally (i.e., on Earth, in the physical realm which we all agree exists), the concern is less about what God you worship than about what tribe you belong to; religion, in and of itself, hasn't caused nearly as many historic wrongs as racism has.
But when you aren't talking about mythology or politics, and instead find yourself conjecturing about what actually happens when humans die, the question of "which God am I worshipping" is about as unimportant as Pascal made it out to be.
You tell me I'm going to hell if I don't believe in [G-d]...that guy tells me I'm going to hell if I don't believe in [G-d]...that guy tells me I'm destined for the land of Thud if I don't believe in Eris.
Hmm... two references to the same Almighty, and one to a made-up religion.
And, as best I recall, only a few major religions have a "belive this or you're going to hell" clause--and most of those can be interpreted as "if you don't understand, you'll suffer the eternal pain of the ignorant."
This of course ignores that if there were a deity that created beings, endowed them with the capacity for logic, failed to provide evidence of its own existence,
Stop.
Every religious tradition we have begins with the Divine revealing Itself to man, either directly or through an intermediary. Depending on who you ask, you can even still find the Divine revealing Itself to us.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that the very, very wicked are made to suffer, the very, very good get to hang out in what must be the best place in all of creation, and the rest of us just sort of exist in the middle. Relgion just helps "the rest of us" become very-very good while avoiding being very-very-bad.
You're mistaking our description of the universe for the universe itself.
The universe will be as simple or as complex as it is regardless of our theories.
Our theories, on the other hand, should be as simple as they can be and still make sense. A terro-centric model of the solar system, with everything orbiting around the Earth, is still technically "correct." It's just too complex to be worthwhile to anyone save a stargazer.
It's a common unword used in product names, and that's the only place it's ever used. And, like most such terms it's an abomination.
You're one of those people that still maintains that "ain't" is not a proper word, aren't you?
Lite is as proper a word as any other. Heck, two hundred years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Now, I'll grant that L-I-T-E isn't a preferred or formal spelling of "light", but it's an accepted one. (You could even go so far as to say that "lite" is really a suffix, and needs to be appended to an existing word for its spelling to be acceptable. I.e., "This isn't really a full burrito; it's more of a burrito-lite.")
What next. I should get my wife cubic zirconium because it looks the same as a diamond but is much cheaper because it was made with "technology".
No, you should do it because you can get more for your money AND avoid supporting an international crime ring.
Pay the same ammount for the gift (so she doesn't think you cheap), but use the rest of the money for something more. (Bigger rock, more rocks, non-rock gift--it's your wife!)
You're not being old-fashioned--you're being brainwashed by a criminal syndicate.
Why do people think that if nobody has any privacy that it naturally correlates with positive advancements toward open society? Wouldn't a lack of privacy be a boon to criminals and civilized society alike? Isn't this what we are seeing now with the rise of the internet?
Depends on how persuasive the lack of privacy is.
If it's essentially impossible to be private, then crime essentially vanishes. And, even better, if the "TIA" system works well enough, we'll see as the first change a massive drop in false accusations.
If privacy is still attainable by those who work at it, then crime will flourish under the system.
So, it should really be an "all or nothing" thing--that, as a most important safeguard, includes an automatic notification whenever someone wants to see your record.
All this format and over-analytical plot-mongering which comes from 'load balancing' and 'average mean time to next bathroom break' measurements seems to detract from the humbler purpose of RPG's, MMORPG's, and video games in general, and that is to tell some sort of story...
NO. no, no, nono no no NO!
RPGs, CRPGS, MMORPGs, and all other kind of GAME has one purpose, and it's certainly not "tell a story." It's to BE A FUN GAME!
MMORPGs and traditional pen & paper RPGs, with their inherent open-ended natures, are the worst places to try and foster any kind of a story. A modestly advanced system for organizing quests can the same game-purpose as a story, without forcing the desinger or the GM to waste time.
Think of it this way--all people tell stories about the games that they play. Only a few play games about the stories they hear.
(Add your own "if a amateurish storyteller wants to tell a story, let them do that outside of a game" rant here.)
I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own.
It is.
I thought any changes made became the property of the project, for everyone to use.
Nope. Well, essentially so, but unless you explicity sign over your copyright, it's still yours. So, for example, if the project managers wanted to re-license, they'd have to contact you again for your specific permission to do so.
And what you're missing is that Darl & SCO are doing what should have been done fifteen years ago--challenging the GPL.
Unless SCO's case is settled, we'll likely have a solid answer one way or the other to the FUDish question of "Is making software GPL legally equivalent to making it Public Domain?"
Either way, it was a death that was exactly what Ep2 was about preventing.
The Walchowski brothers tried to be artistic with their ending and make a statement of some kind, and in doing so forgot the most basic rule of mass-media--leave them wanting more. If they wanted to write something with a crappy ending, they should have stuck to comic books.
Try and remember how you reacted in Matrix: Revolutions when we found out Neo can make a quadgizillion sentinels explode in the real world with sheer thought alone.
"Oh, THAT's what the Archectect meant..."
There was a stated change in the fundamental nature of the hero, followed by a display of said fundamental difference.
The Matrix was a let-down in Reloaded, not Revolutions. It's literary treason to have one episode/chapter be about accomplishing a goal (save Trinity), and the very next episode have that goal nullified as a secondary occurance.
A blind Neo and a crippled (but not dead) Trinity would have more than sufficed for the "heroic sacrafice" part of the Heroic Cycle they were going for. Killing off the focal couple was, IMO, their unforgivable betrayal of the audience and the major reason why the last move was such a let down.
I don't know about today, but definitely in the earlier, 2D era there were plenty of games that had at least completely illogical aspects to them
The word that you, and whomever wrote this boneheaded article, are looking for is "fantasitc." Not "illogical."
Mario can fly when he gets the leaf that gives him the racoon cap and tail--this is a fantasic (i.e., "not real") part of the game, not an illogical part.
An illogical part of the game would be if Mario randomly powered up, depending on some non-understandable syntax.
Of course, this being/., the fact that "illogical" isn't an antonym of "realistic" won't come across to many people.
Christopher Tolkien, however, recognized very well what was going on, and he has exerted iron control on copyright and publication rights ever since. He has even managed to bully US publishers and bookstores into ignorning that little copyright issue and paying him royalties. So I think it will be at least 100 years until you see a Gutenberg Project release of LotR.
What copyright issue?
Copyright lasts for more than half a century after the author's death. Christopher is the administrator of his father's estate--who ELSE do you think that the royalty checks will be sent to?
Kama Sutra is more athletics than technical isn't it
Nope.
AFAIK, the original Kama Sutra included several chapters that were deleted because they offended western morals--chapters on how to seduce a woman from her husband, how to hide an affair from your wife, et cetra.
So, it's actually more sociology than technology...
People far, far too often equate "different" with "faulty" without realizing that it's the differences that do more to fulfill the potential of the human spirit than anything else we know of.
I beg to differ.
A sense of commonality, rather than individual differences, does more for the human spirit and its potential than anything else. When we focus on our differences, we either don't bind together, or we bind together in small fractitious circles. When we focus on commonalities, we bind together in large, powerful groups.
Of course, the word you're probably looking for is "diversity." In a given number of groups, the ones with the strongest sense of commonality and the widest relevant diversity will be the most effective ones.
Look at D&D, the longest running RPG of them all: not balanced. Bards are wimps and Clerics are boss. Multiplayer Neverwinter Nights is great anyway, because its not a competition for dominance, its an endeavor for fun.
Actually, "balance" isn't "who can knock who down in a fight", but rather "who gets how much time in front of the GM."
Pen & Paper RPGs are really, really, REALLY easy to balance--just convince the GM to run a game wherein none of their friends dominates the party.
On the other hand, CRPGS, especially multiplayer ones, are a @!$@# to balance--because the designer can't rely on GM handwaving to make the game fair for everyone.
I still think Palladium will fail, simply because Linux and the BSDs have now attained critical mass, and that most Linux users simply won't accept a closed hardware platform like it. Therefore, someone will step up to the plate and provide a non-Palladium hardware platform -- simply because there is money to be made in such a platform.
You misunderstand what Palladium is for. And, really, if Linux/BSD have reached "critical mass", there will be a Palladium layer written for them.
AFAIK, Palladium will be a greater boon to sysadmins and creative-types than anything else. Unless, of course, you're the kind of guy who refuses to use Linux because it has a "closed" file system that doesn't let you set permissions without the admin's permission...
Now, for a serious question: has anybody got any idea on how to quickly disable RFIDs? I don't want to be followed around, whether it is by Microsoft, a retailer or anybody else. Please don't say: "Just microwave it", because some things with embedded RFIDs cannot be microwaved..
Don't buy them? It's still quite possible to make your own clothes.
As for not being followed around--I recommend living in a remote rural area and only making purchases via land-based telephone or internet. Oh, and walk everywhere--they'll probably be able to track your car soon enough.
If you don't want to join, there's probably a reason for that.
Yes. And a recruiter won't change your mind.
But "want to join the military" isn't a binary state. There are those who want to join the military (and either do, or don't due to circumstances beyond their control [asthma, etc]), and there are those who DON'T want to join the military (pacifits, folk who don't want to die, etc.)...
and then there are folk who just haven't given it serious thought, or who are sitting on the fence about it. This last group is a fair and valid target for recruiters.
Using a game to make it look glamorous is just another way of lying to kids in order to get them to join the military under false pretenses. This is nothing new; don't get me wrong. It's just slimy.
Have you played America's Army? The darn thing is about as far from "glamorous" as you can get. You learn how to use weapons, and you train to kill people with them. All in all, it seems like a fairly honest appraisal to me.
Patents exist to serve the people of the country that grants them - not the inventor.
No, the patent system exists to beneift the country. Individual patents are designed to benefit the inventor.
Like I said, it doesn't matter if IBM uses their patent for lawsuit-insurance or profit--the exlucivity grant is for their benfit, as as long as they file the application, the system doesn't care what they do with it.
I really enjoy both Sci-Fi and Fantasy, but what I wouldn't give for a novel that just ended without dragging me into 3 or more books. I just don't have time to read 3 in a row and I don't have patience to wait for them to keep coming out.
Translation: You want to read a novel that's contained within one book. A LOT of novelists (especially in the franchises) forget that LOTR was three books because it was so long--not because three volumes really helps the story. (Though, again, a lot of the second-tier francise stories are single-volume contained...)
A good one-volume fantasy I got for Xmas was Song of the Beast by Carol Berg. Nicely done. (Her premiere work, a trilogy, while good and modestly self-contained, is really a long story that should be read together, and not what you want.)
Of course, my own work (see homepage) will be as standalone as I can get them. Definitly not as serial as Wheel of Time has gotten.
Re:IANARS, so I wonder...
on
Saving Hubble
·
· Score: 0
Is it possible to bump the HST up to join the ISS
You've got it backwards.
HST is, IIRC, at the nearest LaGrange point to Earth. It's a heck of a hike there and back, and missions have been cancelled to hubble simply because it's so @#$#!ing far out.
ISS, OTOH, is at an unstable LEO--so that Soyuz rockets can reach it.
I would hope that, in the next 20 years or so, we move the ISS to where Hubble is, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
So tell me, if I worship Jesus and it turns out he was just one of Allah's prophets, does he waive the "no other gods before me" clause? And if Jesus is divine but I worship Allah and deny that he was anything but a man, does Jesus forgive the mistake?
Yes, in both theoretical cases. I even go so far as to say that, if you are a good person as-judged-by-God, you'll do fine. God is not a judge enforcing someone else's rules, he's an all-knowing creator. The Almighty can and does bend the rules, and allow for truly extenuating circumstances. After all, He really does know everything. (And if "he" doesn't, then we're talking to a schmuck trying to scam us--and so we should look for God elsewhere. Maybe playing skeeball.)
Saying that Allah and Jehovah are the same bloke is fine if you're talking about the mythologic tradition, but as a practical matter it doesn't quite work out.
Practical matter? Do you mean spirtually, or temporally?
Temporally (i.e., on Earth, in the physical realm which we all agree exists), the concern is less about what God you worship than about what tribe you belong to; religion, in and of itself, hasn't caused nearly as many historic wrongs as racism has.
But when you aren't talking about mythology or politics, and instead find yourself conjecturing about what actually happens when humans die, the question of "which God am I worshipping" is about as unimportant as Pascal made it out to be.
You buy a CRT and you get BETTER performance for about 1/3rd the cost -
Assuming you live in your mother's basement, and don't pay for electricity.
A CRT is on the "be sure to turn it off when you leave" list as far as power consumption goes.
You tell me I'm going to hell if I don't believe in [G-d]...that guy tells me I'm going to hell if I don't believe in [G-d]...that guy tells me I'm destined for the land of Thud if I don't believe in Eris.
Hmm... two references to the same Almighty, and one to a made-up religion.
And, as best I recall, only a few major religions have a "belive this or you're going to hell" clause--and most of those can be interpreted as "if you don't understand, you'll suffer the eternal pain of the ignorant."
This of course ignores that if there were a deity that created beings, endowed them with the capacity for logic, failed to provide evidence of its own existence,
Stop.
Every religious tradition we have begins with the Divine revealing Itself to man, either directly or through an intermediary. Depending on who you ask, you can even still find the Divine revealing Itself to us.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that the very, very wicked are made to suffer, the very, very good get to hang out in what must be the best place in all of creation, and the rest of us just sort of exist in the middle. Relgion just helps "the rest of us" become very-very good while avoiding being very-very-bad.
Why should the universe be simple and elegant?
You're mistaking our description of the universe for the universe itself.
The universe will be as simple or as complex as it is regardless of our theories.
Our theories, on the other hand, should be as simple as they can be and still make sense. A terro-centric model of the solar system, with everything orbiting around the Earth, is still technically "correct." It's just too complex to be worthwhile to anyone save a stargazer.
It's a common unword used in product names, and that's the only place it's ever used. And, like most such terms it's an abomination.
You're one of those people that still maintains that "ain't" is not a proper word, aren't you?
Lite is as proper a word as any other. Heck, two hundred years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Now, I'll grant that L-I-T-E isn't a preferred or formal spelling of "light", but it's an accepted one. (You could even go so far as to say that "lite" is really a suffix, and needs to be appended to an existing word for its spelling to be acceptable. I.e., "This isn't really a full burrito; it's more of a burrito-lite.")
It's spelt light, lite is the creation of some semi literate PR bunny--
;)
--and now it's an accepted spelling of a hononyom of "light" that means smaller and airy, as opposed to the object of luminescence.
Deal with it, or go jump in a volcano.
Try to get the original tracks for a linkin park session in 50 or 60 years..good luck.
All that requires is a good backup system--the sort of thing the studio Linkin Park worked with should have anyway.
As for the "natural" sound you like--you're not using a tube for a techincal reason, you're using it for an artistic one.
What next. I should get my wife cubic zirconium because it looks the same as a diamond but is much cheaper because it was made with "technology".
No, you should do it because you can get more for your money AND avoid supporting an international crime ring.
Pay the same ammount for the gift (so she doesn't think you cheap), but use the rest of the money for something more. (Bigger rock, more rocks, non-rock gift--it's your wife!)
You're not being old-fashioned--you're being brainwashed by a criminal syndicate.
Why do people think that if nobody has any privacy that it naturally correlates with positive advancements toward open society? Wouldn't a lack of privacy be a boon to criminals and civilized society alike? Isn't this what we are seeing now with the rise of the internet?
Depends on how persuasive the lack of privacy is.
If it's essentially impossible to be private, then crime essentially vanishes. And, even better, if the "TIA" system works well enough, we'll see as the first change a massive drop in false accusations.
If privacy is still attainable by those who work at it, then crime will flourish under the system.
So, it should really be an "all or nothing" thing--that, as a most important safeguard, includes an automatic notification whenever someone wants to see your record.
All this format and over-analytical plot-mongering which comes from 'load balancing' and 'average mean time to next bathroom break' measurements seems to detract from the humbler purpose of RPG's, MMORPG's, and video games in general, and that is to tell some sort of story ...
NO.
no, no, nono no no NO!
RPGs, CRPGS, MMORPGs, and all other kind of GAME has one purpose, and it's certainly not "tell a story." It's to BE A FUN GAME!
MMORPGs and traditional pen & paper RPGs, with their inherent open-ended natures, are the worst places to try and foster any kind of a story. A modestly advanced system for organizing quests can the same game-purpose as a story, without forcing the desinger or the GM to waste time.
Think of it this way--all people tell stories about the games that they play. Only a few play games about the stories they hear.
(Add your own "if a amateurish storyteller wants to tell a story, let them do that outside of a game" rant here.)
I thought that the whole point of open source is so nobody can take the software, change it, and then sell it as their own.
It is.
I thought any changes made became the property of the project, for everyone to use.
Nope. Well, essentially so, but unless you explicity sign over your copyright, it's still yours. So, for example, if the project managers wanted to re-license, they'd have to contact you again for your specific permission to do so.
And what you're missing is that Darl & SCO are doing what should have been done fifteen years ago--challenging the GPL.
Unless SCO's case is settled, we'll likely have a solid answer one way or the other to the FUDish question of "Is making software GPL legally equivalent to making it Public Domain?"
Either way, it was a death that was exactly what Ep2 was about preventing.
The Walchowski brothers tried to be artistic with their ending and make a statement of some kind, and in doing so forgot the most basic rule of mass-media--leave them wanting more. If they wanted to write something with a crappy ending, they should have stuck to comic books.
Try and remember how you reacted in Matrix: Revolutions when we found out Neo can make a quadgizillion sentinels explode in the real world with sheer thought alone.
"Oh, THAT's what the Archectect meant..."
There was a stated change in the fundamental nature of the hero, followed by a display of said fundamental difference.
The Matrix was a let-down in Reloaded, not Revolutions. It's literary treason to have one episode/chapter be about accomplishing a goal (save Trinity), and the very next episode have that goal nullified as a secondary occurance.
A blind Neo and a crippled (but not dead) Trinity would have more than sufficed for the "heroic sacrafice" part of the Heroic Cycle they were going for. Killing off the focal couple was, IMO, their unforgivable betrayal of the audience and the major reason why the last move was such a let down.
I don't know about today, but definitely in the earlier, 2D era there were plenty of games that had at least completely illogical aspects to them
/., the fact that "illogical" isn't an antonym of "realistic" won't come across to many people.
The word that you, and whomever wrote this boneheaded article, are looking for is "fantasitc." Not "illogical."
Mario can fly when he gets the leaf that gives him the racoon cap and tail--this is a fantasic (i.e., "not real") part of the game, not an illogical part.
An illogical part of the game would be if Mario randomly powered up, depending on some non-understandable syntax.
Of course, this being
Christopher Tolkien, however, recognized very well what was going on, and he has exerted iron control on copyright and publication rights ever since. He has even managed to bully US publishers and bookstores into ignorning that little copyright issue and paying him royalties. So I think it will be at least 100 years until you see a Gutenberg Project release of LotR.
What copyright issue?
Copyright lasts for more than half a century after the author's death. Christopher is the administrator of his father's estate--who ELSE do you think that the royalty checks will be sent to?
Kama Sutra is more athletics than technical isn't it
Nope.
AFAIK, the original Kama Sutra included several chapters that were deleted because they offended western morals--chapters on how to seduce a woman from her husband, how to hide an affair from your wife, et cetra.
So, it's actually more sociology than technology...
People far, far too often equate "different" with "faulty" without realizing that it's the differences that do more to fulfill the potential of the human spirit than anything else we know of.
I beg to differ.
A sense of commonality, rather than individual differences, does more for the human spirit and its potential than anything else. When we focus on our differences, we either don't bind together, or we bind together in small fractitious circles. When we focus on commonalities, we bind together in large, powerful groups.
Of course, the word you're probably looking for is "diversity." In a given number of groups, the ones with the strongest sense of commonality and the widest relevant diversity will be the most effective ones.
Look at D&D, the longest running RPG of them all: not balanced. Bards are wimps and Clerics are boss. Multiplayer Neverwinter Nights is great anyway, because its not a competition for dominance, its an endeavor for fun.
Actually, "balance" isn't "who can knock who down in a fight", but rather "who gets how much time in front of the GM."
Pen & Paper RPGs are really, really, REALLY easy to balance--just convince the GM to run a game wherein none of their friends dominates the party.
On the other hand, CRPGS, especially multiplayer ones, are a @!$@# to balance--because the designer can't rely on GM handwaving to make the game fair for everyone.
I still think Palladium will fail, simply because Linux and the BSDs have now attained critical mass, and that most Linux users simply won't accept a closed hardware platform like it. Therefore, someone will step up to the plate and provide a non-Palladium hardware platform -- simply because there is money to be made in such a platform.
You misunderstand what Palladium is for. And, really, if Linux/BSD have reached "critical mass", there will be a Palladium layer written for them.
AFAIK, Palladium will be a greater boon to sysadmins and creative-types than anything else. Unless, of course, you're the kind of guy who refuses to use Linux because it has a "closed" file system that doesn't let you set permissions without the admin's permission...
Now, for a serious question: has anybody got any idea on how to quickly disable RFIDs? I don't want to be followed around, whether it is by Microsoft, a retailer or anybody else. Please don't say: "Just microwave it", because some things with embedded RFIDs cannot be microwaved..
Don't buy them? It's still quite possible to make your own clothes.
As for not being followed around--I recommend living in a remote rural area and only making purchases via land-based telephone or internet. Oh, and walk everywhere--they'll probably be able to track your car soon enough.
If you don't want to join, there's probably a reason for that.
Yes. And a recruiter won't change your mind.
But "want to join the military" isn't a binary state. There are those who want to join the military (and either do, or don't due to circumstances beyond their control [asthma, etc]), and there are those who DON'T want to join the military (pacifits, folk who don't want to die, etc.)...
and then there are folk who just haven't given it serious thought, or who are sitting on the fence about it. This last group is a fair and valid target for recruiters.
Using a game to make it look glamorous is just another way of lying to kids in order to get them to join the military under false pretenses. This is nothing new; don't get me wrong. It's just slimy.
Have you played America's Army? The darn thing is about as far from "glamorous" as you can get. You learn how to use weapons, and you train to kill people with them. All in all, it seems like a fairly honest appraisal to me.
Patents exist to serve the people of the country that grants them - not the inventor.
No, the patent system exists to beneift the country. Individual patents are designed to benefit the inventor.
Like I said, it doesn't matter if IBM uses their patent for lawsuit-insurance or profit--the exlucivity grant is for their benfit, as as long as they file the application, the system doesn't care what they do with it.
If you're registering patents just to show off, you're abusing the system.
Or, you're firmly establishing prior art and ensuring that you have sufficient leverage to use someone else's patents.
Indirect or nonfiscal profit is hardly abuse of the system.
If the problem exists, clearly we have strayed from the principles of good capitalism.
We did that nearly a century ago. "New Deal", "welfare", or "federal aid" anyone?
Pure capitalism is as bad as pure socialism. There is a very good reason that we're in the middle.
I really enjoy both Sci-Fi and Fantasy, but what I wouldn't give for a novel that just ended without dragging me into 3 or more books. I just don't have time to read 3 in a row and I don't have patience to wait for them to keep coming out.
Translation: You want to read a novel that's contained within one book. A LOT of novelists (especially in the franchises) forget that LOTR was three books because it was so long--not because three volumes really helps the story. (Though, again, a lot of the second-tier francise stories are single-volume contained...)
A good one-volume fantasy I got for Xmas was Song of the Beast by Carol Berg. Nicely done. (Her premiere work, a trilogy, while good and modestly self-contained, is really a long story that should be read together, and not what you want.)
Of course, my own work (see homepage) will be as standalone as I can get them. Definitly not as serial as Wheel of Time has gotten.
Is it possible to bump the HST up to join the ISS
You've got it backwards.
HST is, IIRC, at the nearest LaGrange point to Earth. It's a heck of a hike there and back, and missions have been cancelled to hubble simply because it's so @#$#!ing far out.
ISS, OTOH, is at an unstable LEO--so that Soyuz rockets can reach it.
I would hope that, in the next 20 years or so, we move the ISS to where Hubble is, not the other way around.