We have a whole generation of kids who are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening in a decade or so when they find themselves entering the workforce and discovering that having all of their (perfectly normal) youthful indiscretions documented for posterity and only a google search away for anyone who cares to look might have been a really bad idea....

So, let's say that once a week while you're walking in to work, a stranger runs up and punches you in the gut.

That makes it A-OK if someone else decides they want to start doing it hourly, right? After all, you were ALREADY getting punched in the gut, why would you object to more?

Or, in a nutshell, your reasoning is fucking idiotic.

Who said I have any sort of religious beliefs? I don't.

They will know the company's wifi passwords.

That doesn't mean they have any business seeing, for example, the home wifi password on an employee's company laptop.

True.

But in most organizations of any size, a multi-user system will also be a multi-admin system.

As an admin, there are plenty of ways I can, if I choose, keep my data from being viewable by my fellow admins.

Yes, it takes a bit of extra work, but it's entirely doable.....

This ignores multiuser systems.

Simply having an account on a multiuser system does not mean I want all admins on that system to have access to my info.

Worse than that, if you accept that argument as valid, then there is no point in encrypting and/or hashing passwords. Ever. Just store the file in a "safe" place.

Sure it does. Lots of it, in fact.

You may not accept it as persuasive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless....

However, if your brain is, in fact, living in a vat, your lack of belief does not alter that fact.

Therefore, your unwillingness to believe that something may be true simply because it's untestable is illogical.

Yeah... Or that... Oops... :)

And happy new transit.

The objection isn't to trying things that are hard and dangerous.

The objection is to doing obviously stupid shit that has zero chance of working.

I won't go so far as to flat out say "They shouldn't try".

What I will say is that I can see some moral issues raised by this project.

They're sending human beings on a one-way trip to Mars. The one-way aspect is a big deal here. The plans for financing this are revenue generated from a reality TV show? How many TV shows remain popular for an entire human lifetime? Exactly none that I'm aware of. And what about any children born on Mars? Now they have to fund this for more than one human lifetime.

The way I see this playing out, if it gets off the ground, is that in a relatively short time the organization's funding dries up, at which point world governments get stuck with the burden of either sending continuous supply missions, or mounting rescue missions.

I do believe this project has a slim, outside chance of actually landing people on Mars. Do I think this project has the potential to live up to their obligation to keep the colonists supplied for the long haul? Not a chance in hell.

Those are two distinct and separate subsets of Americans.

The footage taken in North Liberty, looks pretty much the same as what I saw myself just south of Des Moines, which in turn matches pretty closely with descriptions from people who saw it over by Council Bluffs.

If you take a look at an Iowa map, you'll find that covers most of the width of the entire state.

That would seem to indicate a sizeable object and a long distance. It was substantially bigger and brighter than the "shooting star" meteors that one can spot on a pretty regular basis.