1. No. You don't get to define my argument. That is the very definition of a straw man. I define my argument. As to legislation, the reality is that the highly restrictive climate change oriented legislation is deeply unpopular both nationally and internationally. Even in countries that support the concept with words tend to undermine it with action.
We must agree that words in themselves are worthless. Words at this point is about all you've got going for you. As to concrete action, nearly everything being pushed in this venue has either not been passed, been fatally crippled, or loopholed to such an extent that it basically doesn't matter.
What is more, you seem to think that if you just get the US or a couple other countries to sign on its mission accomplished. To the contrary, if this is a global issue, then a cooperation of a few countries is irrelevant. You need either all the countries or a major of pollution producers in the world on board with the average weighted by the amount of pollution produced by each party.
China and India won't sign on. The developing world has zero regard for your position. And in that alone your efforts are rendered laughably futile until such time as you can change that.
2. As to giving up, I didn't suggest you give up. I suggested that you stop doing stupid counter productive things that merely serve to irritate people and underscore your incompetence.
To the contrary, not only did I not suggest you give up, I suggested instead that you shift your tactics to something that might be more effective. To pervert my point to suggest I am advocating submission is either dishonest or idiotic.
So there we go... you're either a liar or a moron.
Pick one. But your words sadly allow for no other options in this matter.
In your defense, I assume you're just a victim of cognitive dissonance and are incapable of actually thinking about issues that might touch of your world view. As a result, your intelligence and awareness is contextually impaired. This means you're not a complete moron. Just a moron on specific issues. This is not uncommon. You get the same thing with evangelicals and evolution discussions. Likewise, they're typically not that stupid. But on that issue they also cannot think rationally.
Sadly, the nature of cognitive dissonance is that you won't be able to realize this... its a bit like addictions in that the mind lies to itself and makes excuses to support irrational behavior or judgments.
In any case, I wish you well. I have no animosity towards you. I just find it disappointing that people so frequently lack the introspection to perceive their own biases.
As to meth heads... you do realize they're already making meth right? They're sitting there with little chemistry kits cooking meth.
Do you honestly think that printing a 3d gun is going to be more complicated then cooking meth?
Because right now... since the plans for the gun already exist... I think its probably harder to cook meth then it is to make a gun. Can't say for sure since I've done neither. But I have a high degree of confidence that I could make a 3d gun if I really wanted one... but I'm honestly unsure how to make meth. I know it has something to do with cough syrup or something.
Anyway... these things are going to ultimately be as easy to print as anything else. The printer might cost you 500~1000 dollars and then printing the gun might be another 20 dollars in materials.
Might a meth-head sell that to buy more meth? Sure. But what does a black market gun cost? See? The black market gun might be a good deal more expensive.
And even if we make the dubious assumption that the meth-head simply can't hold on to the device long enough to print even one gun. Lets say in the criminal world there is a "guy" that just prints these guns for people. Do you honestly think you'll be able to regulate this guy? There is no point of sale you can tap. It's black market. You can try and track these people down through the "friend of a friend" networks they use but good luck.
Ultimately, the criminals will have access to all the guns they want. Just like they do now.
The only question is whether you want the criminals to be better armed then your law abiding citizens.
Point blank. That is what you're controlling here. Whether law abiding citizens are armed. You will not stop criminals from being armed. You haven't be able to stop it in the past or present. And going forward your efforts will be just that much more laughable.
This is now an intelligence test. You will be graded.
Right, because that little straw man is entirely valid.
No where did I say child abuse was okay. And by your idiotic logic all private and home school situations are all about child abuse.
Since they're not... your argument is stupid.
So here are your options. You can either come up with a less stupid argument that doesn't rely on straw men. OR you can either double down or push another stupid argument. In which case... you'll be responsible for either sustaining a patiently stupid argument or for pushing two stupid arguments consecutively. At which point, it will be reasonable for me to assume you are in fact an idiot.
First, totally fine with public funding for education. I do think that everyone should get a high school level education at least paid for by the government... be that city, state, or federal.
That said, I don't think the education should be administered by the government. I don't believe in public schools because it gives politicians control over something that really should be a personal choice of the parents and the relevant communities.
Obviously the money shouldn't just be dolled out without qualifications. Set some basic standards that must be met to receive funding. Little things like standardized tests. If a significant percentage can't pass the standardized tests at graduation then clearly the school failed to educate them.
How the schools are ultimately held to standards is debatable. But what I'd prefer is a system where local communities can pick and choose how THEY want to run their school largely indifferent to what the rest of society wants. Because at the end of the day, what matters is can the children function in society. Have they learned enough to progress and take the next steps to becoming functional members of our society? That's all that matters.
No some people are going to say, "oh we must force these schools to teach evolution and drive out all this religious crap"... Well, good luck with that. Between private religious schools, home schools, and simple religious indoctrination you're going to always have that as an element. I am not suggesting we embrace it. I am instead suggesting we let parents choose how they want to educate their children. I do think they have that right. You have a right to indoctrinate your children with the values and beliefs you feel appropriate. That is core right of parenthood. The government doesn't have that right unless you're an orphan in a state home.
Just let the religious people teach their children as they please. And everyone else can do the same. If that means the religious fellows don't educate any genetic engineers... I think we can survive that.
Jamming will subvert all systems or the jamming won't be worth a damn.
The weapons contractors will need to offer comprehensive electronic warfare packages in modern systems.
Which means... all your navigation systems are going to be disabled in a war zone unless you have the access codes. And that's a good thing.
Seriously, why do you think you should be able to use GPS in a war zone when that will be the primary means of navigation for smart weapons? Cruise missiles, war drones, etc... do you honestly not see the problem with leaving that open?
Why do you think you should be able to access those systems in the middle of a conflict zone? And why would the europeans care? You want to use your GPS system in the middle of a war zone? What war zone? Why are you moving around in those areas without authorization? That's a great way to get shot.
As to military hardware, that isn't true. We see space as a long term economic, scientific, political, and military resource.
All the above.
As to the US using Russian launch capacity for a few months. What of it? Its for the international space station which we mostly put in place to give Europe a role in space.
Why else do we have an international space station? It doesn't do enough scientific work to be worth the expense. Its mostly a political gimmick.
And it is those sorts of boondoggles that drain our space program of resources.
If we never did the international space station it would free up a lot of money in NASA to actually do something interesting.
So the decades of US support during the cold war against the Soviet Union was apparently not a real thing?
You apparently are totally unaware of the cold war.
NATO was created to provide and formalize US military support for your nations. That was the whole POINT of NATO.
Think WE needed NATO? Think the soviets were actually a threat to the US? Not really. We could stand them off indefinitely and we knew it. They were a threat to YOU. They wanted to run tanks through YOUR streets and take over YOUR governments and add YOUR people to their empire.
We provided you with the military, economic, and political muscle to survive. Without that... Stalin would have eaten you alive.
And you have the idiotic audacity to get indignant when the US asks for ANYTHING in return? Even something so basic as support when we get attacked?
If that is your attitude then you're garbage allies and no one should bother relying upon you for anything.
Your whole diplomatic position would collapse overnight without us. The wolves would be scratching on the door within a week.
US GPS system had this feature and was adopted thus rendering your argument obviously invalid.
As to the US ahole status, that's mostly because the US stands as scapegoat for whatever political discontent is present throughout the world. The US is beyond tired of it. From the saddest mud hut living countries to the parliaments of europe... when the rabble get upset... blame the Americans. We're apparently to blame for everything. Never mind the problems were there before we ever arrived and will be there long after we have gone. But please... Blame us. That way your own politicians don't have to take responsibility for anything.
What did we do specifically to earn our ahole status?
As to intel, just pointing out we're not a stupid people. That was part of a larger argument.
As to global standards, we invent things your militarizes don't have... if we hobbled our selves to what our allies used and nothing else we'd be banging rocks together. Furthermore, why should the US follow european standards for communication in military matters when in most wars we bring the majority of the forces?
Look, we don't need to use the same system. We just need to understand each other when we coordinate. So we need some sort of conversion portal in place to make that simple.
As to the spying scandal... that's more due to the inept diplomacy of our fearless leader. The man is a twit. He let the europeans use the spying issue to make us look foolish. That is all. Your leaders weren't surprised by it. We had signed agreements with you on this stuff ages ago. We shared intelligence. You knew and you accepted our activities because we shared our intelligence with you.
What is more, you spy on us all the time and we in turn get a good deal of that intelligence from you.
Think we're surprised that you spy on us? Are you perhaps unaware that you spy on us? Why do you think you should be able to spy on us but we shouldn't be able to spy on you?
I'll say what I said to the others... if you're willing to accept a mutual ban on spying on each other then I'll accept that. But I won't accept any ban on US action that you aren't restricted from doing as well. And I want some penalties in place should you break the rules just so this isn't one of those treaties that you sign but don't care about there after.
I didn't say the US doesn't have a superior bargaining position that it frequently uses to get a favorable bargain. All things being equal... its only fair.
What I said was that if the US offered a reciprocal deal many european powers would turn it down. Especially if the treaty included nasty penalties for breaking the rules.
What the Europeans want is to improve their bargaining position. As to spying... they do each other and to the US all the time.
What would the US lose by not spying on the Europeans? Possibly less information for the state department when negotiating some deals. But then the Europeans would have the same problem with us... suddenly they'd know less. I'm willing to accept it if you are...
but the point is that the european governments wouldn't accept it despite whining about the spying. Which means all this whining is really just a ploy. If they were actually morally outraged they'd accept a deal like this... but they wouldn't accept it.
They'd want to retain their ability to spy. Which is really all you have to say on the matter.
For now. And we'll pay that. The idea is that over time we want to get more for less by giving up control of it to a more organic market driven system that might be more innovative and consistent in its objectives.
Recently we had the director of NASA say his biggest mission was Muslim outreach. That's just politics obviously and stupid politics at that... but its typical of the way political organizations work. They don't have a consistent bottom line. They can be very mercurial... shifting randomly one way then the other. This upsets long term projects that might take ten years to develop and another ten after that to build followed by perhaps another ten years to monitor the results. No political organization can maintain focus that long. Not the US government, not the Chinese, and not any nation in europe.
You might be focused on space right now but how long will that last? Will you maintain focus for the next 60 years? I doubt it. You won't focus consistently.
A private sector approach might be able to do that. The trick will be creating a way to make a profit in space.
Communications sats are very profitable. We use them for TV, internet, navigation, orbital observation, etc. So that portion of the industry is already very healthy. We need to branch that out somehow to encompass something more ambitious.
Regardless, we need to bring the cost of launching things into orbit down to a more reasonable price.
Too many people think "just spend more money" is a solution to a problem. You can fix anything that way but you can't fix everything that way. Some things will have to be efficient.
We hear people say that to solve our healthcare issues, our military issues, our various economic issues, our diplomatic problems, etc... everyone always says as the first thing "just spend more money"... well we can't do that for everything. Its not sustainable. We can spend more on something as the cost of spending less on others. But no one can ever agree on what gets less funding. Its always more for everything.
So yes... we're trying to find ways to spend less on the space program while still maintaining a credible space program. It isn't easy. But the intellectual vacuums that keep saying "spend more" are not helping.
As to the conflicting arguments... that is a misunderstanding.
We said we wouldn't unilaterally disable the system in such a way that it would cause problems for European military or business interests. We certainly did not say we would never encrypt the system to lock anyone else out.
As to our complaint, our issue was that the system as designed didn't seem to have the ability for YOU to lock your own system in the even that you needed to do that.
We're your allies. We're not aholes. We told you that we wouldn't screw you and then you went and built a new system that was ultimately going to screw yourselves as well as us. So yeah... we pointed that out.
We're not evil or stupid. If we were evil we'd use our great power to enslave the world. We have tried if anything to do the opposite. As to stupid... You're likely using an Intel or AMD processor... both of which are American. And then you're likely using an operating system designed in the US. Even most of the linux distros are US in origin. Etc. We are not a stupid people.
We are your friends. Built whatever you like. Its your money. It just becomes hard to coordinate with you if you're using other systems that don't mesh with ours easily.
Were that the case you'd make some effort to not be so horribly dependent on the US for strategic military support.
You are... and you've made no effort to get out from under our umbrella. So long as you are under our umbrella the issue of GPS is so minor to your dependency that it isn't even a blip on the radar screen. Its nothing compared to that.
Imagine what would happen to EU diplomatic and political relations if the US withdrew from NATO and cut all ties.
What would your relationship be with Russia? With Iran? What would happen in Eastern Europe? What if the US just abandoned the whole Eurasian continental group and left you to deal with your own problems?
The US doesn't need help dealing with anything in the Americas. We're totally self sufficient for our own strategic security. You are not.
IF you were not only doing this GPS thing but also increasing your militarys and training all the EU nations in combined military drills then MAYBE you could make this claim about wanting to get out from under our umbrella. But you're not. So that makes no sense.
Well, we're trying to boot strap a private sector space program. You've likely seen what is happening with the new orbital launch start up companies.
That is our next move. We'd like to make NASA more of a science and coordination department that does lots of hard science and possibly sets goals. But the actual space rockets etc have always been built by private contractors and the most reliable source of funding is the private sector. If we can bootstrap a private sector space program it should be more efficient, more sustainable, and ultimately more productive.
I don't know if you've looked at the difference in cost between what it costs NASA to build a rocket and what it costs a private company to build a rocket... but NASA tends to spend anywhere from double to ten times what the market rate is for many projects. Its just government waste at a certain point. And if we're in a space race with an enemy power that wants to annihilate us then we can tolerate that sort of thing. But if we're not then there's no reason to excuse it.
This the boys out of JPL. No one is better at this... no one has invested or continues to invest as much as us in this... we're just thinking long term about how to actually conquer space.
We need a paradigm shift. That is what we're doing. We're not stopping. We're evolving.
As to letting you use the GPS system... we always have let you use it and I don't see why you'd think we wouldn't.
As to spying, you spy on us all the time as well so that's hypocritical. I'll tell you what... If I were in charge, I'd offer this to the european countries upset by spying. I would offer to not spy on you if you do not spy on us. Reciprocal intelligence treaty. No intelligence agency can target any american citizen or official for any reason. And in return, we would offer the same to you.
You would never sign it. Which is why I would offer it to you. To prove your hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy dealt with...
As to leverage in diplomatic issues, that's just diplomacy. All countries do that all the time. Its called negotiation. You don't think allies of the US don't try to pressure the US to agree to things all the time that are not in its interest? It happens constantly. And if we are so unfortunate to have a bad bargaining position at the time then they might force our hand. If that is something you call betrayal then many european countries have betrayed the US repeatedly.
It isn't betrayal. Its diplomacy. Deal with it.
As to belonging to another power, you'll have to do a lot more then build a GPS system to get out from under our protection.
You'll have to build an ACTUAL navy, an ACTUAL air force, an ACTUAL army, and be willing to use them in combined forces to protect your interests.
Remember Kosovo? America does. We watched you play with the Serbs for months. It was pathetic. You were getting stalemated by a third world country. A similar thing happened in Libya.
Europe cannot presume to exert US level military power unless it builds a military similar to the US military. Even if you break it up on national lines... it doesn't matter. Together you'd have to be able to project that kind of force. And until you do... you're going to rely on US strategic support. And if you are relying on US strategic support, using a different navigation system is going to complicate our ability to help you.
We had this problem repeatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan. European allies would frequently be a liability because they weren't communicating or coordinating properly.
Look... do as you please and my point is not to be mean here. I'm just saying... we are you allies and this move isn't actually helpful either to you or to us. It just creates complication to no purpose. But whatever. In the end it doesn't really matter.
Russia and china aren't allied with the US. They can't use the GPS system for military purposes. Where as you are offered that by the Americans.
As to shipping routes etc, the reason for that is that you don't want the enemy using your own navigation system against you. So we do encrypt the system in areas of conflict. But why wouldn't the europeans do the same thing?
If NATO is involved in something then why wouldn't the EU do the exact same thing? The alternative is that you make your system avaliable to enemy use. Which means YOUR soldiers could get killed by drones or missiles that are using YOUR navigation system.
See?
If you're smart, you'll have to encrypt your system as well in areas of conflict. And really, the US will likely ask you to do it even if you're not in that area at the time. And being our allies... you'll probably do it for the same reason we would encrypt our GPS system in areas you fought in but we did not.
We're friends and so we help each other in these matters.
As to not trusting the US Government... join the club. Americans don't trust their own government at this point. However, that has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with the government having no respect for rights.
It has been funny watching the fake outrage from the europeans over the whole spying issue... from the politicians in any case. The citizens of europe are of course ACTUALLY mad. But the politicians knew all along. We had agreements to share data with them and vice versa.
Its too bad we have such an idiot in office. If Obama were smart, he'd offer this to the various nations pretending outrage... Agree not to spy on them if they agree not to spy on us. Reciprocal intelligence treaty. Now of course, they do spy on us all the time. Perhaps we're better at it but its not for their lack of trying. We are continually catching people spying on us all the time from all over the world. Mostly our own allies. And we've been catching them for over 40 years... or perhaps since always. But it has increased over the years.
I don't know what to tell you. We are your friends. Actually. We've been your allies for a long time and we've been faithful throughout. I'm not sure what we'd have to do to improve your impression.
The primary downside the US GPS system is that it limits high precision navigation to military purposes. For anything not needing to be super precise, GPS works just fine.
And even then, you can get the ultra precise lock if you really want it.
Why would the Europeans need anything else? They get everything the americans get out of it. Including military targeting.
Look, build whatever you want. It just seems like in this case the euros are just saying "me too" and building something because someone else built it never mind that its redundant.
1. Criminals aren't going to care since they're going to be SHOOTING people with the 3d printed guns. Adding some extra charge like owning a 3d printed gun on top of murder isn't really going to phase them.
2. The only people that would even vaguely care about this rule would be law abiding citizens that wouldn't use the guns for anything uncivil in the first place.
3. Given that only law abiding citizens are going to be effected by this law, do we care that they have 3d printed guns for the purposes of hunting, protecting themselves, or target practice?
4. Ignoring points 1-3 how will you actually catch anyone with one of these guns? They have no point of sale. No detectable distribution. Possibly they don't even show up on metal detectors. How exactly are you going to stop anyone from having one of these? All this will do is see some goof ball that goes hunting with a 3d printed gun arrested or fined despite not doing anything threatening with it. That's literally the best case this law is going to offer.
So lets recap:
1. Criminals are not effected by this law.
2. Law abiding citizens are effected and really only the ones that are especially deferential to government rules since anyone that is even vaguely disinterested in following them can simply choose not to with almost no risk.
3. No thought is being given to what the intention of the law is or how it will actually work.
4. Indifferent to everything else, you can't catch people with these guns or stop them from having them... so why are you making something illegal that you cannot enforce?
I didn't goalpost shift. And I only passed out the maturity labels when people started acting like children.
The inconvienent truth is that you're a supporter of a toxic political movement, that pretends to advocate for the environment, but strangely only does so in ways that favor given political factions... and all solutions tend to be dual use issues like increased regulation or wealth redistribution that were already desired by those same political factions for entirely political reasons.
To then come to us after literally generations of conflict and suggest that we should embrace your philosophy for Gaia... well... you'd have to be a moron to buy into it.
And more importantly... its failed. Not even your philosophical allies the chinese or russians are on board for you little games. Its a still born child. A blue baby. Its dead.
You can manically clutch and and breath into its lifeless little mouth all you like. But it will do no more then draw the pity of your peers.
Pick another tactic that has a hope in hell of being anything more then a ploy to advance the ambitions of a few politicians or line a few well placed pockets.
It was an example of a stupid way to accomplish a goal.
Your inability to recognize a rhetorical device undermines you claims to sophistication.
The reality is that your current tactic is not effective, has been exploited by political parties to further their interests indifferent to the environment, and has generally turned what should have been a unifying problem into a dividing one.
It was idiotically handled. As in handled in a way consistent with idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
1. No. You don't get to define my argument. That is the very definition of a straw man. I define my argument. As to legislation, the reality is that the highly restrictive climate change oriented legislation is deeply unpopular both nationally and internationally. Even in countries that support the concept with words tend to undermine it with action.
We must agree that words in themselves are worthless. Words at this point is about all you've got going for you. As to concrete action, nearly everything being pushed in this venue has either not been passed, been fatally crippled, or loopholed to such an extent that it basically doesn't matter.
What is more, you seem to think that if you just get the US or a couple other countries to sign on its mission accomplished. To the contrary, if this is a global issue, then a cooperation of a few countries is irrelevant. You need either all the countries or a major of pollution producers in the world on board with the average weighted by the amount of pollution produced by each party.
China and India won't sign on. The developing world has zero regard for your position. And in that alone your efforts are rendered laughably futile until such time as you can change that.
2. As to giving up, I didn't suggest you give up. I suggested that you stop doing stupid counter productive things that merely serve to irritate people and underscore your incompetence.
To the contrary, not only did I not suggest you give up, I suggested instead that you shift your tactics to something that might be more effective. To pervert my point to suggest I am advocating submission is either dishonest or idiotic.
So there we go... you're either a liar or a moron.
Pick one. But your words sadly allow for no other options in this matter.
In your defense, I assume you're just a victim of cognitive dissonance and are incapable of actually thinking about issues that might touch of your world view. As a result, your intelligence and awareness is contextually impaired. This means you're not a complete moron. Just a moron on specific issues. This is not uncommon. You get the same thing with evangelicals and evolution discussions. Likewise, they're typically not that stupid. But on that issue they also cannot think rationally.
Sadly, the nature of cognitive dissonance is that you won't be able to realize this... its a bit like addictions in that the mind lies to itself and makes excuses to support irrational behavior or judgments.
In any case, I wish you well. I have no animosity towards you. I just find it disappointing that people so frequently lack the introspection to perceive their own biases.
As to meth heads... you do realize they're already making meth right? They're sitting there with little chemistry kits cooking meth.
Do you honestly think that printing a 3d gun is going to be more complicated then cooking meth?
Because right now... since the plans for the gun already exist... I think its probably harder to cook meth then it is to make a gun. Can't say for sure since I've done neither. But I have a high degree of confidence that I could make a 3d gun if I really wanted one... but I'm honestly unsure how to make meth. I know it has something to do with cough syrup or something.
Anyway... these things are going to ultimately be as easy to print as anything else. The printer might cost you 500~1000 dollars and then printing the gun might be another 20 dollars in materials.
Might a meth-head sell that to buy more meth? Sure. But what does a black market gun cost? See? The black market gun might be a good deal more expensive.
And even if we make the dubious assumption that the meth-head simply can't hold on to the device long enough to print even one gun. Lets say in the criminal world there is a "guy" that just prints these guns for people. Do you honestly think you'll be able to regulate this guy? There is no point of sale you can tap. It's black market. You can try and track these people down through the "friend of a friend" networks they use but good luck.
Ultimately, the criminals will have access to all the guns they want. Just like they do now.
The only question is whether you want the criminals to be better armed then your law abiding citizens.
Point blank. That is what you're controlling here. Whether law abiding citizens are armed. You will not stop criminals from being armed. You haven't be able to stop it in the past or present. And going forward your efforts will be just that much more laughable.
This is now an intelligence test. You will be graded.
Choose.
Right, because that little straw man is entirely valid.
No where did I say child abuse was okay. And by your idiotic logic all private and home school situations are all about child abuse.
Since they're not... your argument is stupid.
So here are your options. You can either come up with a less stupid argument that doesn't rely on straw men. OR you can either double down or push another stupid argument. In which case... you'll be responsible for either sustaining a patiently stupid argument or for pushing two stupid arguments consecutively. At which point, it will be reasonable for me to assume you are in fact an idiot.
This is a test. Your answer will be graded.
First, totally fine with public funding for education. I do think that everyone should get a high school level education at least paid for by the government... be that city, state, or federal.
That said, I don't think the education should be administered by the government. I don't believe in public schools because it gives politicians control over something that really should be a personal choice of the parents and the relevant communities.
Obviously the money shouldn't just be dolled out without qualifications. Set some basic standards that must be met to receive funding. Little things like standardized tests. If a significant percentage can't pass the standardized tests at graduation then clearly the school failed to educate them.
How the schools are ultimately held to standards is debatable. But what I'd prefer is a system where local communities can pick and choose how THEY want to run their school largely indifferent to what the rest of society wants. Because at the end of the day, what matters is can the children function in society. Have they learned enough to progress and take the next steps to becoming functional members of our society? That's all that matters.
No some people are going to say, "oh we must force these schools to teach evolution and drive out all this religious crap"... Well, good luck with that. Between private religious schools, home schools, and simple religious indoctrination you're going to always have that as an element. I am not suggesting we embrace it. I am instead suggesting we let parents choose how they want to educate their children. I do think they have that right. You have a right to indoctrinate your children with the values and beliefs you feel appropriate. That is core right of parenthood. The government doesn't have that right unless you're an orphan in a state home.
Just let the religious people teach their children as they please. And everyone else can do the same. If that means the religious fellows don't educate any genetic engineers... I think we can survive that.
Jamming will subvert all systems or the jamming won't be worth a damn.
The weapons contractors will need to offer comprehensive electronic warfare packages in modern systems.
Which means... all your navigation systems are going to be disabled in a war zone unless you have the access codes. And that's a good thing.
Seriously, why do you think you should be able to use GPS in a war zone when that will be the primary means of navigation for smart weapons? Cruise missiles, war drones, etc... do you honestly not see the problem with leaving that open?
Why do you think you should be able to access those systems in the middle of a conflict zone? And why would the europeans care? You want to use your GPS system in the middle of a war zone? What war zone? Why are you moving around in those areas without authorization? That's a great way to get shot.
This whole argument makes no sense.
As to military hardware, that isn't true. We see space as a long term economic, scientific, political, and military resource.
All the above.
As to the US using Russian launch capacity for a few months. What of it? Its for the international space station which we mostly put in place to give Europe a role in space.
Why else do we have an international space station? It doesn't do enough scientific work to be worth the expense. Its mostly a political gimmick.
And it is those sorts of boondoggles that drain our space program of resources.
If we never did the international space station it would free up a lot of money in NASA to actually do something interesting.
So the decades of US support during the cold war against the Soviet Union was apparently not a real thing?
You apparently are totally unaware of the cold war.
NATO was created to provide and formalize US military support for your nations. That was the whole POINT of NATO.
Think WE needed NATO? Think the soviets were actually a threat to the US? Not really. We could stand them off indefinitely and we knew it. They were a threat to YOU. They wanted to run tanks through YOUR streets and take over YOUR governments and add YOUR people to their empire.
We provided you with the military, economic, and political muscle to survive. Without that... Stalin would have eaten you alive.
And you have the idiotic audacity to get indignant when the US asks for ANYTHING in return? Even something so basic as support when we get attacked?
If that is your attitude then you're garbage allies and no one should bother relying upon you for anything.
Your whole diplomatic position would collapse overnight without us. The wolves would be scratching on the door within a week.
US GPS system had this feature and was adopted thus rendering your argument obviously invalid.
As to the US ahole status, that's mostly because the US stands as scapegoat for whatever political discontent is present throughout the world. The US is beyond tired of it. From the saddest mud hut living countries to the parliaments of europe... when the rabble get upset... blame the Americans. We're apparently to blame for everything. Never mind the problems were there before we ever arrived and will be there long after we have gone. But please... Blame us. That way your own politicians don't have to take responsibility for anything.
What did we do specifically to earn our ahole status?
As to intel, just pointing out we're not a stupid people. That was part of a larger argument.
As to global standards, we invent things your militarizes don't have... if we hobbled our selves to what our allies used and nothing else we'd be banging rocks together. Furthermore, why should the US follow european standards for communication in military matters when in most wars we bring the majority of the forces?
Look, we don't need to use the same system. We just need to understand each other when we coordinate. So we need some sort of conversion portal in place to make that simple.
No eternal allies huh? That's not what your politicians tell us.
Your leaders always swear to us that we're friends forever.
So your leaders lie to us? Or you don't know what you're talking about?
Its one of the two... if not both.
When did the US use GPS against the europeans?
*rolls eyes*
As to the spying scandal... that's more due to the inept diplomacy of our fearless leader. The man is a twit. He let the europeans use the spying issue to make us look foolish. That is all. Your leaders weren't surprised by it. We had signed agreements with you on this stuff ages ago. We shared intelligence. You knew and you accepted our activities because we shared our intelligence with you.
What is more, you spy on us all the time and we in turn get a good deal of that intelligence from you.
Think we're surprised that you spy on us? Are you perhaps unaware that you spy on us? Why do you think you should be able to spy on us but we shouldn't be able to spy on you?
I'll say what I said to the others... if you're willing to accept a mutual ban on spying on each other then I'll accept that. But I won't accept any ban on US action that you aren't restricted from doing as well. And I want some penalties in place should you break the rules just so this isn't one of those treaties that you sign but don't care about there after.
I didn't say the US doesn't have a superior bargaining position that it frequently uses to get a favorable bargain. All things being equal... its only fair.
What I said was that if the US offered a reciprocal deal many european powers would turn it down. Especially if the treaty included nasty penalties for breaking the rules.
What the Europeans want is to improve their bargaining position. As to spying... they do each other and to the US all the time.
What would the US lose by not spying on the Europeans? Possibly less information for the state department when negotiating some deals. But then the Europeans would have the same problem with us... suddenly they'd know less. I'm willing to accept it if you are...
but the point is that the european governments wouldn't accept it despite whining about the spying. Which means all this whining is really just a ploy. If they were actually morally outraged they'd accept a deal like this... but they wouldn't accept it.
They'd want to retain their ability to spy. Which is really all you have to say on the matter.
I'd like to actually see some commercial cargo planes go fully UAV.
As to human pilots in passenger planes. You could make it so that every third flight they had to go fully manual. Pick an interval.
For now. And we'll pay that. The idea is that over time we want to get more for less by giving up control of it to a more organic market driven system that might be more innovative and consistent in its objectives.
Recently we had the director of NASA say his biggest mission was Muslim outreach. That's just politics obviously and stupid politics at that... but its typical of the way political organizations work. They don't have a consistent bottom line. They can be very mercurial... shifting randomly one way then the other. This upsets long term projects that might take ten years to develop and another ten after that to build followed by perhaps another ten years to monitor the results. No political organization can maintain focus that long. Not the US government, not the Chinese, and not any nation in europe.
You might be focused on space right now but how long will that last? Will you maintain focus for the next 60 years? I doubt it. You won't focus consistently.
A private sector approach might be able to do that. The trick will be creating a way to make a profit in space.
Communications sats are very profitable. We use them for TV, internet, navigation, orbital observation, etc. So that portion of the industry is already very healthy. We need to branch that out somehow to encompass something more ambitious.
Regardless, we need to bring the cost of launching things into orbit down to a more reasonable price.
Too many people think "just spend more money" is a solution to a problem. You can fix anything that way but you can't fix everything that way. Some things will have to be efficient.
We hear people say that to solve our healthcare issues, our military issues, our various economic issues, our diplomatic problems, etc... everyone always says as the first thing "just spend more money"... well we can't do that for everything. Its not sustainable. We can spend more on something as the cost of spending less on others. But no one can ever agree on what gets less funding. Its always more for everything.
So yes... we're trying to find ways to spend less on the space program while still maintaining a credible space program. It isn't easy. But the intellectual vacuums that keep saying "spend more" are not helping.
As to the conflicting arguments... that is a misunderstanding.
We said we wouldn't unilaterally disable the system in such a way that it would cause problems for European military or business interests. We certainly did not say we would never encrypt the system to lock anyone else out.
As to our complaint, our issue was that the system as designed didn't seem to have the ability for YOU to lock your own system in the even that you needed to do that.
We're your allies. We're not aholes. We told you that we wouldn't screw you and then you went and built a new system that was ultimately going to screw yourselves as well as us. So yeah... we pointed that out.
We're not evil or stupid. If we were evil we'd use our great power to enslave the world. We have tried if anything to do the opposite. As to stupid... You're likely using an Intel or AMD processor... both of which are American. And then you're likely using an operating system designed in the US. Even most of the linux distros are US in origin. Etc. We are not a stupid people.
We are your friends. Built whatever you like. Its your money. It just becomes hard to coordinate with you if you're using other systems that don't mesh with ours easily.
Were that the case you'd make some effort to not be so horribly dependent on the US for strategic military support.
You are... and you've made no effort to get out from under our umbrella. So long as you are under our umbrella the issue of GPS is so minor to your dependency that it isn't even a blip on the radar screen. Its nothing compared to that.
Imagine what would happen to EU diplomatic and political relations if the US withdrew from NATO and cut all ties.
What would your relationship be with Russia? With Iran? What would happen in Eastern Europe? What if the US just abandoned the whole Eurasian continental group and left you to deal with your own problems?
The US doesn't need help dealing with anything in the Americas. We're totally self sufficient for our own strategic security. You are not.
IF you were not only doing this GPS thing but also increasing your militarys and training all the EU nations in combined military drills then MAYBE you could make this claim about wanting to get out from under our umbrella. But you're not. So that makes no sense.
Well, we're trying to boot strap a private sector space program. You've likely seen what is happening with the new orbital launch start up companies.
That is our next move. We'd like to make NASA more of a science and coordination department that does lots of hard science and possibly sets goals. But the actual space rockets etc have always been built by private contractors and the most reliable source of funding is the private sector. If we can bootstrap a private sector space program it should be more efficient, more sustainable, and ultimately more productive.
I don't know if you've looked at the difference in cost between what it costs NASA to build a rocket and what it costs a private company to build a rocket... but NASA tends to spend anywhere from double to ten times what the market rate is for many projects. Its just government waste at a certain point. And if we're in a space race with an enemy power that wants to annihilate us then we can tolerate that sort of thing. But if we're not then there's no reason to excuse it.
Anyway... we've never stopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2I8AoB1xgU
This the boys out of JPL. No one is better at this... no one has invested or continues to invest as much as us in this... we're just thinking long term about how to actually conquer space.
We need a paradigm shift. That is what we're doing. We're not stopping. We're evolving.
As to letting you use the GPS system... we always have let you use it and I don't see why you'd think we wouldn't.
As to spying, you spy on us all the time as well so that's hypocritical. I'll tell you what... If I were in charge, I'd offer this to the european countries upset by spying. I would offer to not spy on you if you do not spy on us. Reciprocal intelligence treaty. No intelligence agency can target any american citizen or official for any reason. And in return, we would offer the same to you.
You would never sign it. Which is why I would offer it to you. To prove your hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy dealt with...
As to leverage in diplomatic issues, that's just diplomacy. All countries do that all the time. Its called negotiation. You don't think allies of the US don't try to pressure the US to agree to things all the time that are not in its interest? It happens constantly. And if we are so unfortunate to have a bad bargaining position at the time then they might force our hand. If that is something you call betrayal then many european countries have betrayed the US repeatedly.
It isn't betrayal. Its diplomacy. Deal with it.
As to belonging to another power, you'll have to do a lot more then build a GPS system to get out from under our protection.
You'll have to build an ACTUAL navy, an ACTUAL air force, an ACTUAL army, and be willing to use them in combined forces to protect your interests.
Remember Kosovo? America does. We watched you play with the Serbs for months. It was pathetic. You were getting stalemated by a third world country. A similar thing happened in Libya.
Europe cannot presume to exert US level military power unless it builds a military similar to the US military. Even if you break it up on national lines... it doesn't matter. Together you'd have to be able to project that kind of force. And until you do... you're going to rely on US strategic support. And if you are relying on US strategic support, using a different navigation system is going to complicate our ability to help you.
We had this problem repeatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan. European allies would frequently be a liability because they weren't communicating or coordinating properly.
Look... do as you please and my point is not to be mean here. I'm just saying... we are you allies and this move isn't actually helpful either to you or to us. It just creates complication to no purpose. But whatever. In the end it doesn't really matter.
Russia and china aren't allied with the US. They can't use the GPS system for military purposes. Where as you are offered that by the Americans.
As to shipping routes etc, the reason for that is that you don't want the enemy using your own navigation system against you. So we do encrypt the system in areas of conflict. But why wouldn't the europeans do the same thing?
If NATO is involved in something then why wouldn't the EU do the exact same thing? The alternative is that you make your system avaliable to enemy use. Which means YOUR soldiers could get killed by drones or missiles that are using YOUR navigation system.
See?
If you're smart, you'll have to encrypt your system as well in areas of conflict. And really, the US will likely ask you to do it even if you're not in that area at the time. And being our allies... you'll probably do it for the same reason we would encrypt our GPS system in areas you fought in but we did not.
We're friends and so we help each other in these matters.
As to not trusting the US Government... join the club. Americans don't trust their own government at this point. However, that has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with the government having no respect for rights.
It has been funny watching the fake outrage from the europeans over the whole spying issue... from the politicians in any case. The citizens of europe are of course ACTUALLY mad. But the politicians knew all along. We had agreements to share data with them and vice versa.
Its too bad we have such an idiot in office. If Obama were smart, he'd offer this to the various nations pretending outrage... Agree not to spy on them if they agree not to spy on us. Reciprocal intelligence treaty. Now of course, they do spy on us all the time. Perhaps we're better at it but its not for their lack of trying. We are continually catching people spying on us all the time from all over the world. Mostly our own allies. And we've been catching them for over 40 years... or perhaps since always. But it has increased over the years.
I don't know what to tell you. We are your friends. Actually. We've been your allies for a long time and we've been faithful throughout. I'm not sure what we'd have to do to improve your impression.
The primary downside the US GPS system is that it limits high precision navigation to military purposes. For anything not needing to be super precise, GPS works just fine.
And even then, you can get the ultra precise lock if you really want it.
Why would the Europeans need anything else? They get everything the americans get out of it. Including military targeting.
Look, build whatever you want. It just seems like in this case the euros are just saying "me too" and building something because someone else built it never mind that its redundant.
act like jello and I will put you into a mold.
Define your argument in a more solid fashion and I won't have to do that.
3d printed guns won't even be sold.
You'll just make them on your desktop.
Eventually, this is going to be like trying to stop MP3s.
lets say you made it a requirement that you had to have a license from teh government for each and every mp3 you had in possession.
What would happen?
Would people follow that law?
No.
Would the government catch most of the people breaking the rule? Nope.
Would it be used occasionally to nail some poor bastard they found with an mp3? yes.
that's all this law will do. Its a meaningless legislative theater for halfwits.
Fantastic.
So even when you fail utterly you still somehow win!
Its genius!
how exactly do you enforce this little law?
1. Criminals aren't going to care since they're going to be SHOOTING people with the 3d printed guns. Adding some extra charge like owning a 3d printed gun on top of murder isn't really going to phase them.
2. The only people that would even vaguely care about this rule would be law abiding citizens that wouldn't use the guns for anything uncivil in the first place.
3. Given that only law abiding citizens are going to be effected by this law, do we care that they have 3d printed guns for the purposes of hunting, protecting themselves, or target practice?
4. Ignoring points 1-3 how will you actually catch anyone with one of these guns? They have no point of sale. No detectable distribution. Possibly they don't even show up on metal detectors. How exactly are you going to stop anyone from having one of these? All this will do is see some goof ball that goes hunting with a 3d printed gun arrested or fined despite not doing anything threatening with it. That's literally the best case this law is going to offer.
So lets recap:
1. Criminals are not effected by this law.
2. Law abiding citizens are effected and really only the ones that are especially deferential to government rules since anyone that is even vaguely disinterested in following them can simply choose not to with almost no risk.
3. No thought is being given to what the intention of the law is or how it will actually work.
4. Indifferent to everything else, you can't catch people with these guns or stop them from having them... so why are you making something illegal that you cannot enforce?
I didn't goalpost shift. And I only passed out the maturity labels when people started acting like children.
The inconvienent truth is that you're a supporter of a toxic political movement, that pretends to advocate for the environment, but strangely only does so in ways that favor given political factions... and all solutions tend to be dual use issues like increased regulation or wealth redistribution that were already desired by those same political factions for entirely political reasons.
To then come to us after literally generations of conflict and suggest that we should embrace your philosophy for Gaia... well... you'd have to be a moron to buy into it.
And more importantly... its failed. Not even your philosophical allies the chinese or russians are on board for you little games. Its a still born child. A blue baby. Its dead.
You can manically clutch and and breath into its lifeless little mouth all you like. But it will do no more then draw the pity of your peers.
Pick another tactic that has a hope in hell of being anything more then a ploy to advance the ambitions of a few politicians or line a few well placed pockets.
It was an example of a stupid way to accomplish a goal.
Your inability to recognize a rhetorical device undermines you claims to sophistication.
The reality is that your current tactic is not effective, has been exploited by political parties to further their interests indifferent to the environment, and has generally turned what should have been a unifying problem into a dividing one.
It was idiotically handled. As in handled in a way consistent with idiots.