Yeah, and drone missions over Iran continued unabated after the RQ-160 loss, why, then? Could it be that Iran didn't "spoof" anything, and it just made for a good propaganda win?
(Hint: no, we didn't "quick patch" the "problem" — the aircraft simply malfunctioned and crashed in Iran. And you're buying Iranian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.)
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
In fact, I thought about including a comment about this in my post —
He realizes that our military infrastructure is one of the things that also drives and protects our society, and while war isn't preferable to other motivations for technical progress and scientific research, it is one of the chief motivations throughout our history. He also realizes that exploration can reinvigorate the human spirit, even stoking industry and the economy, which actually would help the people served by the "government safety net" more in the long term by creating a robust economic environment instead of having an environment where half of US households are on the government dole.
There was an interesting part of his UW-Madison speech where he reflected on how many Americans assume that NASA's budget is a lot larger than it actually is. He then went on to (jokingly) propose a new model for government budgets, wherein each agency would get the amount of money that the public thinks they get.
I was amused because if that were true, even among this informed and educated audience, that would mean that DOD would get something like "50%" or "over half" of the federal budget — as many people erroneously assume — when in reality, all of "national defense, veterans, and foreign affairs" is closer to 20%, while "Social programs" and "Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement" are what accounts for "over half" (55%) of our spending.
And some people will still say it's too much; to that I say that China exceeded US space launches for the first time in 2011, has increased their military spending 12% every year for the last decade, and is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025. Hint: that's not all for "peaceful regional defense". In sum, Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't anti-military, and recognizes its necessity and the significant scientific and research contributions it has brought to our society. He also talks about the broader historical context for war. You should really listen to his speech.
...on this topic, it is WELL worth your time. I was fortunate to see Neil deGrasse Tyson speak in person recently at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It's well worth a little over an hour of your time:
Obsession with "the NSA" aside, if a US law enforcement entity with a warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation complies. Because we're, you know, actually a nation of laws.
The CONTENT of the private communications of US Persons are off limits without an individualized warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. It's our friends across the Pacific that are monitoring the content of communications, including of their own citizens.
Google isn't doing this with direct knowledge that a particular person is being spied on by their government. They're doing it based on aggregate evidence in nations known to be monitoring certain groups of internet users en masse; i.e., NOT the United States.
Do you think the US government and US corporations should follow the law, or not? If not, what should govern it?
Your opinion?
Communications metadata in various forms has been fair game for decades (i.e., not a "new" or "post-9/11" construct), and has been validated by the US Supreme Court. How do you propose identifying and targeting specific foreign communications — the content of which does not require, and never has required, a warrant — now increasingly traveling on systems and networks within the US, without first having a mechanism to first identify and target those communications?
Try to get out of your bubble where you perceive that the government is out to "get you" and take away your rights, and realize that the US has adversaries — not even of our own creation! — and that most in government and military leadership take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and the people of the United States seriously.
What happened with Hubble is very well-understood, in terms of the specific event that caused the error, and the management climate that led to multiple tests detecting the error being ignored. In answer to, "Did they really make the same mistake all along the line," yes, yes they did. At least two major tests after the mirror was ground which showed the error were themselves dismissed as flawed.
They are sitting in a cleanroom in upstate New York. There is a longer, more detailed article in the New York Times. The satellites may save $250M each or more on various NASA missions, but they still need to be launched and have a program built around them — which may put dark matter research more than a decade ahead of schedule.
For the folks who don't know what the National Reconnaissance Office is, the NRO is the member of the US Intelligence Community responsible for designing, building, launching, and maintaining the United States' intelligence satellites. It does not do intelligence work itself, nor does it direct the use of space assets. Judging from some of the comments on the NYT article, I should also say this: NRO has been around for a half century, and its existence was declassified two decades ago, so this isn't some kind of "new"/shadowy intelligence agency. While its work is classified, its purpose and function is well-understood.
Twenty-five years after their top-secret, Cold War-era missions ended, two clandestine American satellite programs were declassified Saturday (Sept. 17) with the unveiling of three of the United States' most closely guarded assets: the KH-7 GAMBIT, the KH-8 GAMBIT 3 and the KH-9 HEXAGON spy satellites...
Phil Pressel had kept a secret for 46 years. A secret that he shared with no one, not even his wife, since he first went to work for the Perkin-Elmer optics company in 1965...
Aside: I know this is difficult to comprehend for some on slashdot, but US intelligence assets in space are almost exclusively used for FOREIGN intelligence. Occasionally capabilities of, e.g., the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) may provide civil support in natural disasters. Our intelligence operations are not transparent, and are kept secret to deny our adversaries knowledge of our techniques, capabilities, sources, and methods. Be happy that we're able to repurpose for science intelligence assets that might otherwise have been destroyed or kept secret beyond all usefulness.
You can still do the search by hitting "Search Anyway". Anywhere other than mainland China, this search will work. Just try it. If you're in mainland China and you elect to search anyway, that will result in your connection being reset and will temporarily break your ability to interact with Google. It is China, not Google, that is doing this.
The search can still be performed, but it is China — NOT Google — that is doing the censoring by interfering with queries which contain offending terms.
Before, if someone in mainland China performed a search containing an offending term, equipment that is part of the so-called "Great Firewall" would interfere with the search, making it appear that the search results page was unavailable or resetting the browser's connection, and then making Google unavailable to the user for a period.
Now, Google is warning you that will happen based on observations of which search terms resulted in China's filters blocking the search results.
Why are there so many ignorant comments on this post claiming that it's "Google" the one doing the blocking? They're not.
So, how have the big traditional space contractors like the Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., of old, and now United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance not delivered on their contracts? Saying that it might cost too much by some measure is one thing, but in terms of space launch to LEO you don't get a better record than ULA. Note, too, that SpaceX is using a significant amount of government infrastructure and personnel to launch and manage its space systems — not to diminish what they're doing one bit.
...to monitor communications, seize property, or perform searches before "the internet", should there not be a mechanism to do the same with communications on the internet (email, web sites, social media, etc.)? Or is something about the internet fundamentally different that means "the government" shouldn't be able to monitor it? If so, why? How does this reconcile with the rule of law and the social contract in democratic societies?
So do you think the United States should divest itself of government-operated space launch capability? Should the lessons learned, capabilities gained, infrastructure created, and accomplishments of the last over-30 years be abandoned because the legislative, acquisition, and contracting landscape for government space operations isn't perfect? The "industry giants" in government space operations became "giants" for a reason.
SpaceX has shown that private enterprise has a place alongside government, but SpaceX isn't doesn't operate in a vacuum (pun intended!). Every launch on the SpaceX manifest through 2017 is happening via a US government launch complex, and for good reason. Just because existing space contractors benefit from SLS, it doesn't automatically follow that it's the "wrong way" to do things.
If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.
The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.
The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance, and United Launch Alliance are no slouches. ULA has success after success and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.
How on earth did this get modded up? This is so far away from the US that it's laughable that this would not be modded down into oblivion — even on slashdot.
Oh, I forgot — this is where people somehow don't realize that there is an actual difference between the West and actual tyranny and oppression in the world.
You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.
Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here, instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015.
Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause. You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control — and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy — would actually do for climate change that would be positive.
Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?
Yeah, precisely and it has to be precise or you're not going to believe it right? Because you know full well that there is no such thing as precision in climate science. It's about models and estimates and you right wing idiots are going to refuse to do anything until somehow every molecule of this world can be tracked and we can show that CO2 will cause us problems. Until then, you have a shadow of a doubt that you're clinging to and holding up as evidence that you don't have to do a thing.
Talk about missing the point. The use of the word "precisely" there has nothing to do with what you assume; it's the usage that asks, "How much does human activity play a part in this?" with the natural follow-on, "If human activity isn't really a big part of what's happening with climate cycles [and you can't say that it is or isn't], then we probably shouldn't decimate our economy unnecessarily." It's a key question, and "idiots" like you refuse to acknowledge it.
And what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they inherit a world of shit? That China and India made you do it?
Missing the point — again. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised.) This isn't about "China and India made us do it". It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.
I do get a kick out of you assuming my political position, though, however incorrect you may be. The funny (sad?) thing is that you clearly assume I'm a "denier", when in fact I am very aware of climate change and its implications. Your problem is that you believe everything is about the big bad corporations, Big Oil, "The Rich", etc., and use climate change as a tool to attack your favorite villains, when in reality any workable global solutions are far more complex.
DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years. There is no question that "climate change" is occurring. As usual, what is in question is:
— Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles, and — Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and drone missions over Iran continued unabated after the RQ-160 loss, why, then? Could it be that Iran didn't "spoof" anything, and it just made for a good propaganda win?
(Hint: no, we didn't "quick patch" the "problem" — the aircraft simply malfunctioned and crashed in Iran. And you're buying Iranian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations.)
I think he messed up by comparing NASA's budget to social safety net and education budgets in the video though, the implication that one should grow at a cost to the others is not going to sit well with many. He carefully stepped around mentioning the bloated military budget for some reason.
In fact, I thought about including a comment about this in my post —
He realizes that our military infrastructure is one of the things that also drives and protects our society, and while war isn't preferable to other motivations for technical progress and scientific research, it is one of the chief motivations throughout our history. He also realizes that exploration can reinvigorate the human spirit, even stoking industry and the economy, which actually would help the people served by the "government safety net" more in the long term by creating a robust economic environment instead of having an environment where half of US households are on the government dole.
There was an interesting part of his UW-Madison speech where he reflected on how many Americans assume that NASA's budget is a lot larger than it actually is. He then went on to (jokingly) propose a new model for government budgets, wherein each agency would get the amount of money that the public thinks they get.
I was amused because if that were true, even among this informed and educated audience, that would mean that DOD would get something like "50%" or "over half" of the federal budget — as many people erroneously assume — when in reality, all of "national defense, veterans, and foreign affairs" is closer to 20%, while "Social programs" and "Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement" are what accounts for "over half" (55%) of our spending.
And some people will still say it's too much; to that I say that China exceeded US space launches for the first time in 2011, has increased their military spending 12% every year for the last decade, and is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025. Hint: that's not all for "peaceful regional defense". In sum, Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't anti-military, and recognizes its necessity and the significant scientific and research contributions it has brought to our society. He also talks about the broader historical context for war. You should really listen to his speech.
...on this topic, it is WELL worth your time. I was fortunate to see Neil deGrasse Tyson speak in person recently at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It's well worth a little over an hour of your time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJzHHkmJ-8
Obsession with "the NSA" aside, if a US law enforcement entity with a warrant makes a request to a US corporation, that US corporation complies. Because we're, you know, actually a nation of laws.
The CONTENT of the private communications of US Persons are off limits without an individualized warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. It's our friends across the Pacific that are monitoring the content of communications, including of their own citizens.
Google isn't doing this with direct knowledge that a particular person is being spied on by their government. They're doing it based on aggregate evidence in nations known to be monitoring certain groups of internet users en masse; i.e., NOT the United States.
Do you think the US government and US corporations should follow the law, or not? If not, what should govern it?
Your opinion?
Communications metadata in various forms has been fair game for decades (i.e., not a "new" or "post-9/11" construct), and has been validated by the US Supreme Court. How do you propose identifying and targeting specific foreign communications — the content of which does not require, and never has required, a warrant — now increasingly traveling on systems and networks within the US, without first having a mechanism to first identify and target those communications?
Try to get out of your bubble where you perceive that the government is out to "get you" and take away your rights, and realize that the US has adversaries — not even of our own creation! — and that most in government and military leadership take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and the people of the United States seriously.
What happened with Hubble is very well-understood, in terms of the specific event that caused the error, and the management climate that led to multiple tests detecting the error being ignored. In answer to, "Did they really make the same mistake all along the line," yes, yes they did. At least two major tests after the mirror was ground which showed the error were themselves dismissed as flawed.
The Hubble Space Telescope Optical Systems Failure Report, or the "Allen Report", has all the details.
Of course I noticed the mistake right as I posted it... :-/
They are sitting in a cleanroom in upstate New York. There is a longer, more detailed article in the New York Times. The satellites may save $250M each or more on various NASA missions, but they still need to be launched and have a program built around them — which may put dark matter research more than a decade ahead of schedule.
For the folks who don't know what the National Reconnaissance Office is, the NRO is the member of the US Intelligence Community responsible for designing, building, launching, and maintaining the United States' intelligence satellites. It does not do intelligence work itself, nor does it direct the use of space assets. Judging from some of the comments on the NYT article, I should also say this: NRO has been around for a half century, and its existence was declassified two decades ago, so this isn't some kind of "new"/shadowy intelligence agency. While its work is classified, its purpose and function is well-understood.
For a look at what kinds of work NRO does, see
Declassified US Spy Satellites Reveal Rare Look at Secret Cold War Space Program
Twenty-five years after their top-secret, Cold War-era missions ended, two clandestine American satellite programs were declassified Saturday (Sept. 17) with the unveiling of three of the United States' most closely guarded assets: the KH-7 GAMBIT, the KH-8 GAMBIT 3 and the KH-9 HEXAGON spy satellites...
Secret No More: Spy Satellite Designer Reveals Life's Work
Phil Pressel had kept a secret for 46 years. A secret that he shared with no one, not even his wife, since he first went to work for the Perkin-Elmer optics company in 1965...
Aside: I know this is difficult to comprehend for some on slashdot, but US intelligence assets in space are almost exclusively used for FOREIGN intelligence. Occasionally capabilities of, e.g., the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) may provide civil support in natural disasters. Our intelligence operations are not transparent, and are kept secret to deny our adversaries knowledge of our techniques, capabilities, sources, and methods. Be happy that we're able to repurpose for science intelligence assets that might otherwise have been destroyed or kept secret beyond all usefulness.
You can still do the search by hitting "Search Anyway". Anywhere other than mainland China, this search will work. Just try it. If you're in mainland China and you elect to search anyway, that will result in your connection being reset and will temporarily break your ability to interact with Google. It is China, not Google, that is doing this.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The search can still be performed, but it is China — NOT Google — that is doing the censoring by interfering with queries which contain offending terms.
Before, if someone in mainland China performed a search containing an offending term, equipment that is part of the so-called "Great Firewall" would interfere with the search, making it appear that the search results page was unavailable or resetting the browser's connection, and then making Google unavailable to the user for a period.
Now, Google is warning you that will happen based on observations of which search terms resulted in China's filters blocking the search results.
Why are there so many ignorant comments on this post claiming that it's "Google" the one doing the blocking? They're not.
...drugs, cigarettes, liquor, gambling, lottery tickets, flat screens, cell phones, junk food, etc...
So, how have the big traditional space contractors like the Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., of old, and now United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance not delivered on their contracts? Saying that it might cost too much by some measure is one thing, but in terms of space launch to LEO you don't get a better record than ULA. Note, too, that SpaceX is using a significant amount of government infrastructure and personnel to launch and manage its space systems — not to diminish what they're doing one bit.
AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll
AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll
...to monitor communications, seize property, or perform searches before "the internet", should there not be a mechanism to do the same with communications on the internet (email, web sites, social media, etc.)? Or is something about the internet fundamentally different that means "the government" shouldn't be able to monitor it? If so, why? How does this reconcile with the rule of law and the social contract in democratic societies?
So do you think the United States should divest itself of government-operated space launch capability? Should the lessons learned, capabilities gained, infrastructure created, and accomplishments of the last over-30 years be abandoned because the legislative, acquisition, and contracting landscape for government space operations isn't perfect? The "industry giants" in government space operations became "giants" for a reason.
SpaceX has shown that private enterprise has a place alongside government, but SpaceX isn't doesn't operate in a vacuum (pun intended!). Every launch on the SpaceX manifest through 2017 is happening via a US government launch complex, and for good reason. Just because existing space contractors benefit from SLS, it doesn't automatically follow that it's the "wrong way" to do things.
Space exploration is a key asset which serves to invigorate the national spirit, and government and private enterprise both have a significant place in the future of US space operations.
If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.
The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.
The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance, and United Launch Alliance are no slouches. ULA has success after success and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.
SpaceX Launches Private Capsule on Historic Trip to Space Station
And don't forget the Space Launch System (SLS), which is the next iteration of (government operated) US human spaceflight.
Yeah, it's weird how people who have been suspected of espionage against the United States don't get trials.
Oh, wait... :-/
How on earth did this get modded up? This is so far away from the US that it's laughable that this would not be modded down into oblivion — even on slashdot.
Oh, I forgot — this is where people somehow don't realize that there is an actual difference between the West and actual tyranny and oppression in the world.
You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.
Okay.
I'm sure you can point me to numerous examples of Apple suing individual hackers/hobbyists running hackintosh configurations.
Hackers/hobbyists have zero to do with a company selling a product which affirmatively violates another company's software license.
...and so is Wikileaks for taking it seriously.
[Citation needed]
Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here, instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015.
Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause. You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control — and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy — would actually do for climate change that would be positive.
Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?
Yeah, precisely and it has to be precise or you're not going to believe it right? Because you know full well that there is no such thing as precision in climate science. It's about models and estimates and you right wing idiots are going to refuse to do anything until somehow every molecule of this world can be tracked and we can show that CO2 will cause us problems. Until then, you have a shadow of a doubt that you're clinging to and holding up as evidence that you don't have to do a thing.
Talk about missing the point. The use of the word "precisely" there has nothing to do with what you assume; it's the usage that asks, "How much does human activity play a part in this?" with the natural follow-on, "If human activity isn't really a big part of what's happening with climate cycles [and you can't say that it is or isn't], then we probably shouldn't decimate our economy unnecessarily." It's a key question, and "idiots" like you refuse to acknowledge it.
And what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they inherit a world of shit? That China and India made you do it?
Missing the point — again. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised.) This isn't about "China and India made us do it". It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.
I do get a kick out of you assuming my political position, though, however incorrect you may be. The funny (sad?) thing is that you clearly assume I'm a "denier", when in fact I am very aware of climate change and its implications. Your problem is that you believe everything is about the big bad corporations, Big Oil, "The Rich", etc., and use climate change as a tool to attack your favorite villains, when in reality any workable global solutions are far more complex.
DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years. There is no question that "climate change" is occurring. As usual, what is in question is:
— Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles, and
— Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means