Interesting. What do you think would be clear evidence of planning which could not be explained as fuel for fantasies?

Hard work isn't a value in itself.

Of course it is. You just don't have that value.

Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children.

Wrong again. Family has value even if you don't do that.

There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.

Maybe (and maybe not) but it's irrelevant to the value of family.

When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.

Everything in the world has, by definition, exactly the value paid for it. It's a circular argument but it goes right to the definition of "value".

I thought he looked up actual real women in a database to gather information about them which would assist him in carrying out his fantasies. Isn't that a fact of the case? isn't that "taking practical steps"?

It's a hard question. Do we actually have to wait for a monster to murder and eat a woman, or can we arrest him the day before he does it, at which point he has only established a clear motive, capability, willingness, and preparation? I don't know. I don't think the answer is obviously yes or no.

"...that will dictate how they rule on the matter"

You make a good argument but the way the US Supreme Court would rule is by whoever is Catholic.

I will support getting rid of the caps when business costs don't vary with bandwidth usage. Until then, like with electricity or gasoline or water or any other utility, cost should scale with use. I don't have any problem with that. My problem is with the secret no-warning charges.

Maybe but my guess is that the people who run that project disagree with the idea that "0.0" should be the version assigned to the first line of code and "1.0" should be the first version deemed stable and ready for general use.

I agree with that kind of numbering so I agree with the GP in this case. I think software statuses are easier to understand when people conform to the 0.0/1.0 convention.

Everyone gets to number their software any way they want, and everyone else gets to gripe about it if they don't like it.

It is just my preferences as an interested citizen. Because we decided to let NASA focus on all the other aspects of outer space, such as telescopes or rovers, they have completely ignored the one thing that I consider to be the only good reason for it to exist: human exploration of space. I also support big-government spending on science and the environment but to allow NASA to do those things is distracting. This is a conclusion based on my total disappointment in NASA's work during my lifetime (since the end of the 1970s).

NASA's mission statement no longer mentions Earth.

You hinged your response on NASA's official mission. So, since Earth is no longer part of NASA's mission, does that mean you are convinced by my argument? If not, then the official mission must not be your real objection, in which case what is?

No it's not. It used to be, but it hasn't been since the Bush days.

So, with that objection neutralized, are you swayed?

I said: "NASA's job is to put human beings on other worlds."

You said: "That is NASA's job moron."

Therefore we are in perfect agreement and if I'm a moron then you agree with a moron.

The National Science Foundation, various branches of the military, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency... gosh there are lots of departments that have missions overlapping a satellite like this.

Exactly right. The entire point of a corporation is that it is not the owner. If a corporation can shield its business dealings from the personal assets of its owners, then it can shield its business dealings from the religious beliefs of its owners.

I'm curious about the issue and I want the USA to look into it. But NASA? No. NASA's job is to put human beings on other worlds. NASA's job isn't to sniff CO2 in the air. We have other agencies to do that. If NASA can't do its actual job then it should cease to exist.

I'm glad the US government is doing something like this, but not with NASA. Our space agency needs to get this message: "Put humans on other worlds, or go home. If we want robots or science or satellites or anything else, we'll do that with another agency. For you, concentrate on putting living humans on other chunks of rock, and if you can't manage to do that once per decade then just pack up and save us the money."

The last time NASA did that was fifty years ago. In my space-exploration-loving opinion, NASA should have been disbanded in the late 1970s. Everything since then has been stupid.

"Hey, look, NASA built a space plane call the 'shuttle'! Wow! And they used it to go.... nowhere!"

"Hey, look, NASA built a little remote-controlled car and put it on Mars. Then after that they... well... they built two more and did the same thing... then after that they... uh.... well they built another one and did the same thing..."

"Hey, look, NASA built a satellite and pointed it at... earth..."

"Hey, look, NASA built a telescope and... took pictures of stars... again..."

None of that was worth it. Pack your bags, NASA, because you aren't hitting your numbers. You've been a failure since the Apollo days. Put humans on other worlds. Make it happen or go home, which to me means you need to go home.

"It's just your fucked up government that sucks "

You have your facts wrong. Our government closely represents the will of the people.