Arch Linux allows you to install a very basic system. This makes it extremely attractive for single purpose servers, as well as people who really want granular control over what is installed.
"..and yet with ALL those crazy ideas on BOTH sides you won't find a single memo even floating the idea of missiles on the moon....why? Because it would be pointless, that's why."
Here's your final reality check of this thread. You can return to your Dr. Evil matinee reruns soon. Headline - November 26th, 1959: "It Would Be Hard To Hit Missile Bases On The Moon". Link: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19591128&id=NAkpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3NUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2514,2905067
The entire underlying reason for the "Space Race"? If anyone was going to have a missile base on the moon, it was going to be the United States. Find me a solitary shred of credible information that contradicts that statement. The viability of anti-ballistic missile defenses has not yet reached the ability to shoot down missiles moving far slower than those which would arrive from the moon. Why you insist on arguing against a forgone conclusion, made by the governments of the (then) most powerful nations on Earth, before space travel was even technically feasible, is your business.
Unless you can post something credible that rises above just trying to belittle my posts, we are done here.
If stopping a missile attack from outside the atmosphere were such child's play, we wouldn't have any worries about asteroids hitting the Earth's surface, would we? Mutually assured destruction doesn't have a time limitation, unless you are really short sighted. You'd launch a first strike even if you knew that within forty eight hours your nation would be in the same condition as the one you attacked? And, missiles are 20th century technology. What if a rail gun were on the moon, aimed at your abode. Feel confident that you could toss some pebbles into the air to deflect it? Weapons are evolving. Missiles may be what we have today, but with infrastructure on the moon, an adversary would have a great vantage point from which to launch future attacks, as well as observe (satellites would be knocked out of the sky pretty much in the first minutes of any belligerence.) Having infrastructure on the moon would be the equivalent to controlling the high ground. In 1967, the U.K., the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. signed the "Outer Space Treaty" HTTP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty. They lived in the shadow of the MAD doctrine, and had the foresight to see that weapons positioned in space could be quite advantageous. You can't provide any credible proof that moon based ballistic missiles could be stopped as easily as you claim, let alone at all. When the technology exists to 1) reliably stop 100% of intercontinental missiles, and 2) prevent asteroids discovered within forty eight hours from striking the Earth, let me know.
Even it took 2 days to return the favor of being nuked out of existence, the destruction would still be inevitable, and thus a credible threat, and would therefore act as a strong deterrent to a first strike. Since the moon nukes couldn't be quickly or easily preemptively destroyed in a first strike (or even sabotaged) without triggering the hour long destruction of the Earth, it's far from retarded. I assure you the U.S. would change its tune in an instant if it appeared the Chinese were going to colonize the moon. They aren't gong to ignore the militarization of the moon by anyone, friend or foe. There are non-military advantages to having a permanent base on the moon, as well. Having the infrastructure to transport humans back and forth to the moon would serve as the foundation for eventually colonizing space, as well as sending out sophisticated deep space robotic exploration devices for pure science purposes. Right now the U.S. can't even put a man in orbit. Sending robots to Mars is awesome. Thankfully that ability hasn't been phased out (yet). Science is no longer a long term priority in the U.S. unless it can yield short term wealth. Other nations are more far sighted, and they will benefit accordingly. There may well not be any short term return from colonizing the moon itself (although that may not be true once the moon is more thoroughly explored). It is assured that there would be side benefits, such as the numerous ones given to society by the 1960's space program.
But what if China actually develops the infrastructure to reach the Moon, pretty much at will, and then decides missile bases would be a good idea? Far fetched. But, how would/could the rest of the world respond?
Many, many people cast their vote based on a single, non-economic issue. Carl Rove was a master at corralling these voters, by having socially divisive referendums placed on local ballots. People came out to vote on that one issue. They voted for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear about that single issue. Nothing else about that candidate matters to them. They may even knowingly vote against their own economic interest if they feel strongly enough about that single issue.
When the Bush White House orchestrated the "outing" of then CIA operative Valerie Plume (Wilson by marriage), not a single individual was ever held accountable. The ultimate motivation for destroying Mrs. Wilson's 'cover' was to head off her husband (Ambassador) Joseph Wilson from calling out the Bush White House on the lies it was manufacturing, which eventually paved the way for the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou's allegedly acted as a "whistle blower", publicizing illegal/immoral activity within a government organization. I am pretty sure a whistle blower protection law was passed in the late 80's. It appears increasingly true that laws were made to be broken by the government that creates, and then selectively enforces them.
Hard to imagine who I'll choose who to vote for in November. Right now the write in candidate "None of the Above" looks good.
I used the ZX-81 (assembled) with the 16K memory pack (rubber band to prevent sudden "data loss") for about two years, using it to teach myself how to program in basic and machine language (poke, peek, REM statments, etc.) It was a great learning tool. Saving and loading programs was iffy and irritating for me until I built a Schmitt trigger interface to clean up the signal between the tape machine and the computer. Ah, fond memories. My finger tips have been numb ever since (nice, hot membrane keyboard).
The Monroe Doctrine was, for nearly two centuries, the U.S. government's excuse to dabble in the affairs of nations in the Southern Hemisphere. Two examples of government intervention with an official premise of national security (or the like) but the underlying reason being the assistance of large business concerns: Panama, 1903. The U.S. encouraged Panama to break away from Columbia, and form an independent nation. The U.S. anchored warhips nearby to discourage Columbia from responding militarily. In return, the U.S. gained sovereignty over a narrow swath of land that would become the Panama Canal Zone. Nicaragua, 1907 & 1909. Marines are twice sent into the country. The main beneficiary being the United Fruit Company. The U.S. isn't alone. Industrial espionage on behalf of a nation's industry is pretty common in this world. The MPAA is just the latest client to be exposed.
Slashdot Mirror
Arch Linux allows you to install a very basic system. This makes it extremely attractive for single purpose servers, as well as people who really want granular control over what is installed.
"..and yet with ALL those crazy ideas on BOTH sides you won't find a single memo even floating the idea of missiles on the moon....why? Because it would be pointless, that's why."
Here's your final reality check of this thread. You can return to your Dr. Evil matinee reruns soon.
Headline - November 26th, 1959: "It Would Be Hard To Hit Missile Bases On The Moon".
Link: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19591128&id=NAkpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3NUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2514,2905067
The entire underlying reason for the "Space Race"? If anyone was going to have a missile base on the moon, it was going to be the United States. Find me a solitary shred of credible information that contradicts that statement. The viability of anti-ballistic missile defenses has not yet reached the ability to shoot down missiles moving far slower than those which would arrive from the moon.
Why you insist on arguing against a forgone conclusion, made by the governments of the (then) most powerful nations on Earth, before space travel was even technically feasible, is your business.
Unless you can post something credible that rises above just trying to belittle my posts, we are done here.
If stopping a missile attack from outside the atmosphere were such child's play, we wouldn't have any worries about asteroids hitting the Earth's surface, would we?
Mutually assured destruction doesn't have a time limitation, unless you are really short sighted. You'd launch a first strike even if you knew that within forty eight hours your nation would be in the same condition as the one you attacked?
And, missiles are 20th century technology. What if a rail gun were on the moon, aimed at your abode. Feel confident that you could toss some pebbles into the air to deflect it? Weapons are evolving. Missiles may be what we have today, but with infrastructure on the moon, an adversary would have a great vantage point from which to launch future attacks, as well as observe (satellites would be knocked out of the sky pretty much in the first minutes of any belligerence.) Having infrastructure on the moon would be the equivalent to controlling the high ground.
In 1967, the U.K., the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. signed the "Outer Space Treaty" HTTP://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty. They lived in the shadow of the MAD doctrine, and had the foresight to see that weapons positioned in space could be quite advantageous.
You can't provide any credible proof that moon based ballistic missiles could be stopped as easily as you claim, let alone at all. When the technology exists to 1) reliably stop 100% of intercontinental missiles, and 2) prevent asteroids discovered within forty eight hours from striking the Earth, let me know.
Even it took 2 days to return the favor of being nuked out of existence, the destruction would still be inevitable, and thus a credible threat, and would therefore act as a strong deterrent to a first strike. Since the moon nukes couldn't be quickly or easily preemptively destroyed in a first strike (or even sabotaged) without triggering the hour long destruction of the Earth, it's far from retarded. I assure you the U.S. would change its tune in an instant if it appeared the Chinese were going to colonize the moon. They aren't gong to ignore the militarization of the moon by anyone, friend or foe.
There are non-military advantages to having a permanent base on the moon, as well. Having the infrastructure to transport humans back and forth to the moon would serve as the foundation for eventually colonizing space, as well as sending out sophisticated deep space robotic exploration devices for pure science purposes. Right now the U.S. can't even put a man in orbit. Sending robots to Mars is awesome. Thankfully that ability hasn't been phased out (yet). Science is no longer a long term priority in the U.S. unless it can yield short term wealth. Other nations are more far sighted, and they will benefit accordingly.
There may well not be any short term return from colonizing the moon itself (although that may not be true once the moon is more thoroughly explored). It is assured that there would be side benefits, such as the numerous ones given to society by the 1960's space program.
But what if China actually develops the infrastructure to reach the Moon, pretty much at will, and then decides missile bases would be a good idea? Far fetched. But, how would/could the rest of the world respond?
Many, many people cast their vote based on a single, non-economic issue. Carl Rove was a master at corralling these voters, by having socially divisive referendums placed on local ballots. People came out to vote on that one issue. They voted for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear about that single issue. Nothing else about that candidate matters to them. They may even knowingly vote against their own economic interest if they feel strongly enough about that single issue.
Deja Vu all over again ...
When the Bush White House orchestrated the "outing" of then CIA operative Valerie Plume (Wilson by marriage), not a single individual was ever held accountable. The ultimate motivation for destroying Mrs. Wilson's 'cover' was to head off her husband (Ambassador) Joseph Wilson from calling out the Bush White House on the lies it was manufacturing, which eventually paved the way for the invasion of Iraq.
John Kiriakou's allegedly acted as a "whistle blower", publicizing illegal/immoral activity within a government organization. I am pretty sure a whistle blower protection law was passed in the late 80's. It appears increasingly true that laws were made to be broken by the government that creates, and then selectively enforces them.
Hard to imagine who I'll choose who to vote for in November. Right now the write in candidate "None of the Above" looks good.
I used the ZX-81 (assembled) with the 16K memory pack (rubber band to prevent sudden "data loss") for about two years, using it to teach myself how to program in basic and machine language (poke, peek, REM statments, etc.) It was a great learning tool.
Saving and loading programs was iffy and irritating for me until I built a Schmitt trigger interface to clean up the signal between the tape machine and the computer. Ah, fond memories.
My finger tips have been numb ever since (nice, hot membrane keyboard).
The Monroe Doctrine was, for nearly two centuries, the U.S. government's excuse to dabble in the affairs of nations in the Southern Hemisphere. Two examples of government intervention with an official premise of national security (or the like) but the underlying reason being the assistance of large business concerns: Panama, 1903. The U.S. encouraged Panama to break away from Columbia, and form an independent nation. The U.S. anchored warhips nearby to discourage Columbia from responding militarily. In return, the U.S. gained sovereignty over a narrow swath of land that would become the Panama Canal Zone. Nicaragua, 1907 & 1909. Marines are twice sent into the country. The main beneficiary being the United Fruit Company.
The U.S. isn't alone. Industrial espionage on behalf of a nation's industry is pretty common in this world. The MPAA is just the latest client to be exposed.