What percentage of computer users in the world are capable of finding security issues by looking through the code. How many semi competent application programmers are capable of the same thing? Operating System level code has very little in common with application level code and unless you have a lot of real world experience good luck on finding any undiscovered weaknesses by looking at the source code. The majority of hacks today involve social engineering targeted towards tricking the average user into doing something stupid. Add incompetent system administrators to the mix and your system becomes wide open and susceptible to all kinds of mischief.

So you are now saying that you have proof that the NSA is actively spying on judges in order to collect information so they can pressure the judge to make a particular ruling?

"It is impossible to convey information at a speed faster than c. " It could be possible and we just have not discovered it yet. Unless you know something and just haven't got around to sharing yet. We have a lot of theories and mathematical constructs but if just one of these theories is wrong we would have to re-evaluate all of the assumptions. Especially since some of the baseline theories are based upon mathematical equations that have needed to numerical constants added to make the equations actually work.

So you don't like the courts decision so they must be being blackmailed by the NSA? This kind of reasoning has made the truth inconsequential in todays society. Anything that validates your particular viewpoint automatically becomes true and every thing else is a conspiracy and patently untrue.

It certainly has had non-US nationals working with and for NASA ever since Von Braun was sent to the US after WW2. He was the key rocket designer used in the first moon landing while also working on the US ICBM program. China sends their scientists and astronauts to the US for consulting and training. And it is not nationalism to point out anything that might be considered good coming from the US. Of course I know that is preposterous in today's climate when history is being re-written everyday by people who do not know anything about history outside of what they read on their favorite online blog. One idiot throws out a line of unsupported bullshit and 40 more idiots join the fan club. After all If 40 people agreed with the first idiot it has to be true doesn't it? And then the facts get replaced by dogma and idiocy the continues spreading.

The back to the stone age choice of course. It's a total waste of people and money to end a conflict without any ambiguity as to who one and who lost. If you are not prepared for that course of action you should do nothing. And today the US should have a firm policy that does nothing until someone directly threatens American interests.

When it comes to advanced tech capabilities (plus possession of really big pair of balls) the NSA has shown the world they have pretty much powned the Internet. I doubt they waste much time developing web sites. And when other countries setup their own space initiatives they rely heavily and almost exclusively on technology and operational experience collected from the US or old USSR programs. And while there is nothing wrong with using information gained from someone else's efforts none of them pioneered the technology and processes needed to get to the Moon or anywhere else for that matter. The only other country that can honestly claim they innovated something new is the USSR although chances are good the KGB was able to get hold of any US research to help them keep up. The US is still at the forefront of developing space technology. The replacement of the shuttle program with the X-37 program offers a re-usable space that can provide quick turn around times, ground breaking orbital maneuvering capabilities, stealth, and vastly increased mission time. With the manned version of the X-37 being built the US will own earths orbital spaces. If China or any other country even comes close to claiming exclusive rights to the moon or any where else you would see the US space programs go full tilt with no concerns about the cost. Say what you want about the US but the general population loves a good "us versus them fight" which can provide ample political cover for increasing the government funding. After all it was the US vs. USSR cold war power struggle that made the US moon missions possible.

The US government screwed the armed services in Vietnam and Iraq. The military successfully killed everything that they were pitted against only to have the politicians come in and stop the military right before they finished the job. In the first Iraq war the military was stopped from marching into Baghdad and finishing the job which resulted in the US having to go back 10 years later to do what they should have done the first time around.

The US has better things to do than waste resources on running a orbital delivery service. The US still retains the capability to deliver supplies to the space station if there was an emergency using their X-37 space plane. I wonder when Russia, China, or any other country will voice strident protests concerning the X-37 which gives the US a perfect platform from which to conduct anti-satellite missions.

Implementing existing technology is a lot different than creating it. I can plug a power cord into the outlet to power my computer and use it but I sure as hell couldn't build a computer from scratch or construct a power grid. Using existing technology also allows you to bypass the costly R&D expense. There is really nothing wrong with using existing technology no matter where it came from but in this case some people seem to believe China is leaping ahead of others when it comes to technological innovation. To be fair the US, USSR, France, England, and a few others all benefited from the German technology and scientists seized after WW2. The US actually brought Von Braun to the states to lead their rocket programs and he played a significant role in the first Moon landings while advancing the development of the US ICBM's at the same time. My comment is a response to all those who are claiming that the Chinese lander means they are somehow leaping over the US when it comes to advancing space technology. The same people who use the termination of the shuttle program as an example of disappearing US space programs. The shuttle program ran it's course and provided a wealth of data on space operations as well as provided a test bed for new technologies over the past 25 years. The shuttle program was replaced by the unmanned X-37 space plane which has been conducting orbital ops for the past 3 years and a manned version that holds up to 6 people is already being tested.

It only took Chine over 40 years to achieve the same OMG moment that the US had in 69. And their lander is unmanned to boot! Not to mention that China's space program consists of Russian technology sold in the USSR yard sale when they were hard up for cash and they basically stole the rest from the US and the other countries that actually R&D new technology and not just use the technology others have developed. Should the US ramp up to have another OMG moon landing just to prove they can still do it? Why not just spend the money on advancing robotic landers and probe technology to investigate the solar system?

The legal structure has not changed in regards to Snowden's case. The charges against him have been on the books for a long time.

Lockeed has designed, built, and delivered ground breaking avionic technology for over 50 years. They are the poster child of Free Enterprise Innovation. We will not enter space in any meaningful way until the technology needed to protect and sustain a human being become more mature. We have had the technology to plant someone's ass on Mars ever since the 60's. Supporting someone once they are there is an entirely different animal. The technology could advance rapidly if we wanted to spend unlimited funds in a crash project but even then why would you pay all that money to put someone on Mars when the unmanned landers already there are capable of providing the same amount of data.

I really hope you are joking. How do you prove a negative? "We can't find something therefore it must exist!".

The "free speech zones" first became headline news when it involved protesting during an presidential election period. It was determined the security risk of letting an uncontrolled number of people mob the people protected by the secret service was to big. They setup the zones so people could still express their views and not unnecessarily endanger those being protested against. It's a sensible tradeoff that in today's world is hard to argue against.