Sure, wind could do it. So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.
But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.
Your post is clear and lucid, except for the fact that it is wholly and completely wrong. The satellites in question look for infrared signatures on the Earth. They only detect meteors when they've already hit the atmosphere, by which time it's a bit late to do anything about them.
True, but it is my understanding that QOS does nor require deep packet inspection, and that's what we're talking about here. I have no problem with QOS - it's a good thing. But do you need the capability to read the individual packets to implement that?
"Next you'll be telling me that a Swiss army knife isn't as good for skinning animals as a Bowie knife "
Actually, in most cases one would be better off with a Swiss Army type knife than a Bowie knife. Even on a large animal, parts of the skinning process are delicate and take a light touch, and the smaller blades are better at that. And then get to smaller animals - may as well just beat that rabbit with a rock as use a Ka-Bar. In addition, the saw blade of a SA knife is handy for cutting cartilage, etc.
A Bowie knife is a fighting knife, made more for killing and rough work. It will do other things, but not that well. That being said, when the meteor hits because DOD "blocked" the satellite information, and I have to choose 1 knife, it would be the Ka-Bar or similar. Why? Because I want to stay alive to have the opportunity to skin rabbits with my poor tool, and whipping out a Swiss Army knife will only make a zombie laugh.
From TFS, the military stopped giving out unclassified information that was a byproduct of a military function - a windfall.
"Blocks" means that the information would flow but for the military's action.
The editors (snicker) should have used "stops" - more ambiguous and yet more accurate at the same time. But I guess that wouldn't generate the clicks, now would it?
Aside from your snide superiority, you are shooting at the wrong target. Fiction is used as a guide for action all the time, from Aesop to Shakespeare to the present day. Whatever moral education and guidelines you live by are just as "fictional" as the most died-in-the-wool fundamentalists, and your sense of superiority makes you no better.
"This is precisely why censorship of ANY form by a government is bad."
Private entities can "censor" those within their purview as much as they like. And not all of it is necessarily bad - some things *should* be kept secret. For that matter, not all government censorship is bad, specifically military censorship of soldier's communication. While it's not a pleasant aspect, stopping that email that says, innocently, "We're going to be assaulting X location next month." is probably a good thing.
"Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy."
By that definition, so was the USSR and China. I mean, they say they are a democracy, and votes are held, are they not?
Of course, the fact that there is another set of people who get to pick and choose the candidates, have their own army and police forces, and are NOT elected is wholly irrelevant, isn't it?
You are using those phrases out of context (although the second one is BS). The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any *good* use for that equipment?
"The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god. Just ask Martin Luther. He couldn't even get the "Church" to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant."
But the problem is that the Bible is NOT a coherent work - it is self contradictory and inconsistent. So when lay people read the bible and are confused, you get 1 of 2 results:
1) The reader chooses which particular part he believes in, and then proceeds on that path under the confidence that he is doing the right thing "because the Bible told him so", or...
2) The reader goes to another person, and expert, and asks them to interpret it for them.
Yes, Martin Luther freed us from the yoke of Church hierarchy and corruption, but he's also gave us Creationism, Fundamentalism, and televangelists. Careful what you wish for...
Ironically, the Reformation's emphasis on one's personal connection with God and direct interpretation of the bible has resulted in the current day Fundamentalist movement. One of the reasons the Church did not want the bible translated into the vernacular was that, as a document, it is extraordinarily inconsistent and self contradictory. It *needs* to be interpreted for what is doctrine, parables, eyewitness accounts (subject to human weaknesses), and semi-historical accounts.
Was the Church abusing that idea for the aggrandizement of the institution and the clergy? Absolutely. But if you want someone to blame for the the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, Creationism, etc., talk to Martin Luther, not the Pope.
Judith: [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies. Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry. Reg: What's the *point*? Francis: What? Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies? Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
I support their actions, distasteful as they may sometimes be. What I find inexcusable is their hypocrisy. They claim to be ideologically neutral - they defend "hate speech" (which I don't think is a real term) and NAMBLA. Any ideology, as long as it's in defense of individual freedoms.
The NRA routinely endorses Democrats who support gun rights, and excoriates Republicans who don't. But when it gets to a party level, the Democratic Party has consistently attacked gun rights as a matter of policy, while the GOP has either supported expansion of rights or been neutral.
Is the NRA political on gun rights, or are the parties?
"That one small subset of your rights is already vehemently defended by one large national organization, the ACLU doesn't need to waste its time redundently doubling the NRA's effort."
So then why is the ACLU bothering to get involved with religious rights, gay rights, freedom of the press, abortion rights, etc.?
The ACLU has already issued a statement regarding the second amendment; their stance is that it is not an individual right but a corporate one. Of course, when one asks if any of the OTHER amendments only recognize corporate rights, the answer is a resounding "Of course they don't!"
The ACLU will go to the most extreme lengths to defend ANY encroachment on ANY amendment. Except the second. The resources argument is bullshit.
"I think the ACLU emphasizes the "CL" part, and not the "A" (simply being from America). Gun ownership is unfortunately not a universally recognized liberty."
Well, that's a new excuse. The ACLU doesn't think the right to bear arms is a universal right because others don't recognize it?
OK, that's fine. Then they need to shut the fuck up about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Why? Because the US is one of the few nations where those freedoms are enshrined in the root document of their government. The UK does NOT have explicit freedom of speech. Neither does Germany. Don't think France does either.
Wait, what's that? 1st amendment rights are *different*? Well, in a sense you are right: without guns, you wouldn't HAVE the right to spout inconsistent drivel.
I'm not sure if you are aware of what a "free press" is, but that means they are generally allowed to say what they want as long as it is not libelous. One of the only constraints regarding publishing a person's name is that, if they are not public figures, nor done something to get into the public record, they don't get their name published.
Since this guy was a public figure, and was doing things to get himself in the public record, he is not protected. So the court got it right.
What you seem to be saying is that, if I stand on a street corner spouting whatever political drivel I feel like, and I don't put my name on a placard in front of me, NO ONE is allowed to say who I am? So is someone is listening to me and says "Hey, who is this guy?" and someone else says "That's R2.0 - I recognize him from the same drivel on Slashdot", I can sue?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, wind could do it. So could solar, if we spot a shitload of solar cells all over the world cover a decent portion of it.
But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.
Your post is clear and lucid, except for the fact that it is wholly and completely wrong. The satellites in question look for infrared signatures on the Earth. They only detect meteors when they've already hit the atmosphere, by which time it's a bit late to do anything about them.
You're the guy who misplaced the decimal point in "Office Space", aren't you?
True, but it is my understanding that QOS does nor require deep packet inspection, and that's what we're talking about here. I have no problem with QOS - it's a good thing. But do you need the capability to read the individual packets to implement that?
Actually, in most cases one would be better off with a Swiss Army type knife than a Bowie knife. Even on a large animal, parts of the skinning process are delicate and take a light touch, and the smaller blades are better at that. And then get to smaller animals - may as well just beat that rabbit with a rock as use a Ka-Bar. In addition, the saw blade of a SA knife is handy for cutting cartilage, etc.
A Bowie knife is a fighting knife, made more for killing and rough work. It will do other things, but not that well. That being said, when the meteor hits because DOD "blocked" the satellite information, and I have to choose 1 knife, it would be the Ka-Bar or similar. Why? Because I want to stay alive to have the opportunity to skin rabbits with my poor tool, and whipping out a Swiss Army knife will only make a zombie laugh.
It should be noted that the system looks "down", not "up" - it only sees meteors after they've hit the atmosphere.
So if one big enough to cause substantial damage arrives, the message will be more like "MeteBOOOM!" followed by a lot of static.
From TFS, the military stopped giving out unclassified information that was a byproduct of a military function - a windfall.
"Blocks" means that the information would flow but for the military's action.
The editors (snicker) should have used "stops" - more ambiguous and yet more accurate at the same time. But I guess that wouldn't generate the clicks, now would it?
Aside from your snide superiority, you are shooting at the wrong target. Fiction is used as a guide for action all the time, from Aesop to Shakespeare to the present day. Whatever moral education and guidelines you live by are just as "fictional" as the most died-in-the-wool fundamentalists, and your sense of superiority makes you no better.
Private entities can "censor" those within their purview as much as they like. And not all of it is necessarily bad - some things *should* be kept secret. For that matter, not all government censorship is bad, specifically military censorship of soldier's communication. While it's not a pleasant aspect, stopping that email that says, innocently, "We're going to be assaulting X location next month." is probably a good thing.
"Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy."
By that definition, so was the USSR and China. I mean, they say they are a democracy, and votes are held, are they not?
Of course, the fact that there is another set of people who get to pick and choose the candidates, have their own army and police forces, and are NOT elected is wholly irrelevant, isn't it?
"CEO of GM says that GM is a better company than Toyota."
Really? All I've ever heard Obama say is how shitty GM is. It's the only thing he and I agree on.
You are using those phrases out of context (although the second one is BS). The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any *good* use for that equipment?
But the problem is that the Bible is NOT a coherent work - it is self contradictory and inconsistent. So when lay people read the bible and are confused, you get 1 of 2 results:
1) The reader chooses which particular part he believes in, and then proceeds on that path under the confidence that he is doing the right thing "because the Bible told him so", or...
2) The reader goes to another person, and expert, and asks them to interpret it for them.
Yes, Martin Luther freed us from the yoke of Church hierarchy and corruption, but he's also gave us Creationism, Fundamentalism, and televangelists. Careful what you wish for...
Ironically, the Reformation's emphasis on one's personal connection with God and direct interpretation of the bible has resulted in the current day Fundamentalist movement. One of the reasons the Church did not want the bible translated into the vernacular was that, as a document, it is extraordinarily inconsistent and self contradictory. It *needs* to be interpreted for what is doctrine, parables, eyewitness accounts (subject to human weaknesses), and semi-historical accounts.
Was the Church abusing that idea for the aggrandizement of the institution and the clergy? Absolutely. But if you want someone to blame for the the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, Creationism, etc., talk to Martin Luther, not the Pope.
In my opinion the trolls should be baited with the truth - that's what makes people swallow the hook.
So I thank you for the compliment.
I support their actions, distasteful as they may sometimes be. What I find inexcusable is their hypocrisy. They claim to be ideologically neutral - they defend "hate speech" (which I don't think is a real term) and NAMBLA. Any ideology, as long as it's in defense of individual freedoms.
Except one.
A man on US soil gets attacked by agents of a foreign government.
Slashdot response: "It's the US's fault".
Discuss.
The NRA routinely endorses Democrats who support gun rights, and excoriates Republicans who don't. But when it gets to a party level, the Democratic Party has consistently attacked gun rights as a matter of policy, while the GOP has either supported expansion of rights or been neutral.
Is the NRA political on gun rights, or are the parties?
"That one small subset of your rights is already vehemently defended by one large national organization, the ACLU doesn't need to waste its time redundently doubling the NRA's effort."
So then why is the ACLU bothering to get involved with religious rights, gay rights, freedom of the press, abortion rights, etc.?
The ACLU has already issued a statement regarding the second amendment; their stance is that it is not an individual right but a corporate one. Of course, when one asks if any of the OTHER amendments only recognize corporate rights, the answer is a resounding "Of course they don't!"
The ACLU will go to the most extreme lengths to defend ANY encroachment on ANY amendment. Except the second. The resources argument is bullshit.
"I think the ACLU emphasizes the "CL" part, and not the "A" (simply being from America). Gun ownership is unfortunately not a universally recognized liberty."
Well, that's a new excuse. The ACLU doesn't think the right to bear arms is a universal right because others don't recognize it?
OK, that's fine. Then they need to shut the fuck up about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Why? Because the US is one of the few nations where those freedoms are enshrined in the root document of their government. The UK does NOT have explicit freedom of speech. Neither does Germany. Don't think France does either.
Wait, what's that? 1st amendment rights are *different*? Well, in a sense you are right: without guns, you wouldn't HAVE the right to spout inconsistent drivel.
I'm not sure if you are aware of what a "free press" is, but that means they are generally allowed to say what they want as long as it is not libelous. One of the only constraints regarding publishing a person's name is that, if they are not public figures, nor done something to get into the public record, they don't get their name published.
Since this guy was a public figure, and was doing things to get himself in the public record, he is not protected. So the court got it right.
What you seem to be saying is that, if I stand on a street corner spouting whatever political drivel I feel like, and I don't put my name on a placard in front of me, NO ONE is allowed to say who I am? So is someone is listening to me and says "Hey, who is this guy?" and someone else says "That's R2.0 - I recognize him from the same drivel on Slashdot", I can sue?
SCO actually had a product line? And apparently more than one?
Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.
...have you ever heard of Buckeywires?