Some questions not answered:

Did the OP ask the IT department what sort of services they are capable of providing? Hospital IT departments are usually in the habit of trying to provide departments with what they need, as department heads and doctors generally win the battle for "I want ________" when it goes up the chain.

Did he inform IT of his plans prior to executing it, or just bring in a server and set it up, then start asking for access? If he did the former, they might have worked with him, providing him with rackspace, security, and expert administration so that his workload was limited to application administration. if he did the latter, he's lucky they haven't made an issue out of it and gotten him written up.

Did he make sure he's not violating any federal regulations regarding patient data security? A rogue server on the network is a MAJOR security threat, no matter how competent the administrator is (or believes himself to be).

Did he think about the precedent this sets? If every department decides to go running their own servers on their own terms, IT can't support them and the whole hospital steps back about 20 years in how their network functions.

Did he consider the idea that maybe the service he's setting up for his own department might be useful to scale to the entire hospital at a later date? it sounds like he's found a service he considers worth putting a lot of effort into providing...for just his department. If it's good for radiology, it's likely good for lots of others. But HIS server probably can't accommodate that scale. HIS server isn't centralized. HIS server...well, is his.

By "better" I mean to say "more plausible"

They probably could. I have another idea though that might be better.

If GooTube would use their awesome powers of awesomeness to publicly put pressure on the big media companies to lighten up about people using their content in freely-distributed videos. I'm not saying they should be okay with you posting the last five minutes of their latest blockbuster movie. I'm saying that they shouldn't pitch a fit when you choose to use their music in a video you make.

Here's a thought: wouldn't it be cool if you could use any song you wanted, so long as you linked to a place a viewer could buy that song online if they liked it? Look at how many videos have people asking "what song is that?" They want to know because they like it.

Copyright holders are missing so many opportunities to make money.

"By the parent's logic..."

I should clarify: One's rights don't include the infringement of the rights of others. I made the mistake of assuming that was implied. If I have the right to life, you don't have the right to infringe on that by murdering me.

It has nothing to do with divinely-granted rights. It comes down to two ideas:
- It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
- It is not acceptable for one individual to take from another that which is not offered.

If these two things aren't followed, I would argue that a society cannot function.

We each have a right to what we have worked to produce and to what others have willingly given us. No one has a right to take it away.

Is that simple enough for you?

I don't know why, but this is the funniest thing I have read this week.

You, sir, deserve the mod points I foolishly spent elsewhere this morning.

Everyone has a right to have and keep these things. They have a right to be allowed to pursue them. They don't have a right to demand them from others. The problem I have is this notion that a right to something confers responsibility on others to provide it.

You do NOT have a right to demand that I feed you.

I can make a crude knife by sharpening a stick or banging two rocks together in a certain way. But that's not the point.

I didn't make the clothes on my back, but I did trade something I produced for them (well, I traded my productivity for money, which I then traded for the clothes). It doesn't matter how I got them...now that I have them, they belong to me and I have a right to them and for them to be taken from me would require action by another person.

There's an important distinction here: It's the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms, not the right to HAVE arms. It doesn't require that you be given them, just that you not be prevented from having them.

You don't have a right to a trial at all. Trials exist because we have laws that go beyond rights. We might be able to say there's a right to "fairness" or "justice" but those are harder to define.

And no, I don't have a right to be free from discrimination. But I'd just as soon not do business with someone who wants to discriminate against me. Legal protection from discrimination is nice, but it's not a right.

You don't have a right to food. You have a right to produce food and no one has a right to take it away from you. If I have more food than I need, no one has the right to take it from me just because they don't have enough. You don't "have a right to a share" of things other people work hard to produce. If you want a share, earn it.

Notice that I'm talking about RIGHTS. Not about the way our government works or the way people act and think today. I'm talking about natural rights.

A trial at all requires those services. The judge is there whether it is fair or not.

Clearly defining what is and is not a right is hardly trolling. Don't call someone a troll just because you don't like what they have to say.

Agreed. I'm of the mind that a right is something which requires action to deny, but exists without any intervention by others. The right to free speech, for example, exists naturally: you can say whatever you want until someone comes along and coerces you to stop.

This of course means that health care, education, and web access are NOT rights, because they require other people (doctors, teachers, ISPs) to provide services before such a "right" is accessible. I don't see how anything can be a right when the willful participation of others is a requirement.

Is the point of it to put it in front of as many faces as possible, or to put it somewhere it will actually contribute to space education?

Johnson Space Center has been instrumental in the education of a LOT of young people. I spent time there several times as a student (I grew up 3 hours from it). I would say that making the shuttle part of an education program instead of a mere tourist attraction would be more fitting to NASA's goals.

But hey, it's all about impressing the visitors, right?