Or does the submitter not see the apparent logical flaw in the way the described this process. If you're going to line up each image so that the asteroid is a single sharp pixel and the stars are streaks, doesn't that suggest that you already know which pixel is the asteroid? In which case you don't really need to search for that particular asteroid, no?

At a minimum the submitter or the editors need to think whether their description of the procedure is good.

Assuming your description of me as open-minded and non-bigoted is not literal -- a safe assumption I think based on your closing sentence -- that's some sweet political correctness you have there. I said nothing derogatory about any of the hypothetical people from the post. The words I used are the exact right words to describe the subjects of the story.

I fully support your decision to ignore my posts or disagree with my positions.

As I mentioned in another post, when I said "the rest of society" I meant as individuals each making their own decisions. Not as a single rule that all have to abide by.

There's a serious disconnect between "I'm free to be anonymous and express opinions but everyone else has to provide me the soapboxes to stand on and an audience to hear me." Someone who believes in liberty and freedom would see that to begin with.

The rest of your post I'll skip commenting on because mostly I agree with you and I think you are assuming I hold positions that I don't.

Here's my position wrt this story:

Everybody is free to associate with who they please. This includes people who run online forums and services. In the marketplace of ideas either anonymity or known identity will become dominant because the supporters of those ideas will successfully convince the rest of society of the value of their position. Personally I will decide on a case by case basis whether the service I want to use is worth whatever conditions they put on that service. If most people agree with me then I will find that I can use most services I desire to use without compromising my beliefs. If most people don't agree with me then I may find that I cannot use most services, but I have no right to force the service providers to bend to my position.

Clearly in at least one part of my post I was unclear:

Any right that assures fetishists, trannys and political radicals a sense of anonymity also assures the rest of society the option to require a lack of anonymity.

I don't mean a single rule for all of society. I mean that each individual that makes up the rest of society also gets the right to decide whether they want to associate with anonymous individuals or not.

Your last paragraph I generally disagree with because the issues as you present them are more complex than can be adequately described in a few sentences. That is the social norm that results oppression of women in many cultures is bad, but the social norm of private property and equal rights in other cultures is source of almost all that is good in the world. Simply saying social norms are bad is too brief a statement to carry much meaning.

Other than the fact that I can use any information I can glean without breaking the law to make my decision, I agree 100%. I have the right to ask "who are you?" and require that they prove their identity to me and if they choose not to I don't have to associate with them. Your argument that I don't have the right to ask this is absurd.

My right not to associate with them flows directly to my website/blog/forum -- I can make it real names and actual selfies as avaters only if I so desire.

In the US, and I'd assume almost everywhere because the alternative would be impossible, there's no right to be listened to. You have the right to speak but no one has an obligation to listen and consider your words.

In the US the right to free association is bound up in the first amendment and is as strong as any free speech or privacy right you would care to mention.

It improves civility by attaching a sense of responsibility and engages the normal social filters. Honestly it would work best if, in addition to a person's real name, it also presented their home town.

There's been plenty of social science research on human behavior when insulated from responsibility.

I'm not sure I understand your post. However to clarify the bit of my post that you quoted, I mean that we all have a right to set the terms on how we will interact with people. There is no obligation, in our roles as individuals, to interact with anyone. Just as much as Judge Posner has the right to host fetish pornography on his personal website, I have the right not to visit his website or think of him as some paragon of virtue. If Carlos Danger wants to discuss the merits of monetarism there is no law or social norm that requires that I engage in conversation with him.

If all you are merely asking is whether we have the right to decide who we associate with, well yes it's a basic human right and is formalized in the legal systems of many countries. The First Amendment to the US Constitution and the European Convention are two examples.

The assumed principle is that each of these people has the right to interact with others while hiding their real life identity. And to a certain extent I agree that one has the right to present oneself however one chooses.

But, what about my right to only interact with people who are willing to put their real life identity behind their words and actions? Any right that assures fetishists, trannys and political radicals a sense of anonymity also assures the rest of society the option to require a lack of anonymity.

If this means that we can't come to an agreement on how we will communicate, then that is the price to be paid for our mutual decisions.

There has never been any society in which an individual got to have full participation while simultaneously defining their own norms. Social norms are defined by the group and if you can't abide by those norms then you will have to pay the price that comes from your choice. And that is not unfair or an injustice.

Just beef up body strength the cars and have them "Drive By Braille."

My point is that the reason US pols started getting antsy had nothing to do with how many people were killed, it was the way they were killed.

According to the internet, over a quarter million people die every day. A portion of those can't be saved, but a good portion probably could. Where's the line drawn between sacrificing the future well being of my immediate family for the benefit of someone I've never met, never would meet and quite possibly who will, no matter what outside parties try to do, continue to make bad decisions and will drain you dry if you let them. At some point you have to recognize that taking action can result in a net negative result. The whole moral requirement goes both ways, you may say that those who are better off have an obligation to those who are worse off, but at the same time those who are worse off have an obligation to improve their lot and become a net contributor. Much like a life guard and a drowning swimmer, sometimes they'll take you down with them.

I read an article today where they were talking to Syrian refugees and the people in the refugee camp are developing anti-American sentiment because we're not fighting on their side. If the US intervenes then they get lambasted. If they don't they get lambasted. Well fuck it then.

Not sure if I made a point or not.

You do realize that nobody was suggesting that anyone get involved in Syria when it was only 100,000 dead. It was when they started using CW that the concern was expressed. Not a legit moral position to take, but certainly your argument is rebutted.

Personally I think the US should go to the UN and say, "Hey, CW are bad. MMMKAY?" And if China and/or Russia say, "Yes, but ...". Then the US and the rest of the Western world should respond with, "Oh, so CW proliferation is not a big deal now? Then we'll go ahead and start selling into emerging markets, like Chechnya and Tibet." Of course I'm a bit of a provocateur.

Or just send a note to the Hague suggesting the Bashar al Assad is a war criminal and bring charges. It's a bit symbolic, but it's what the Europeans seem to want to do.

After reading your blog I'd have to say that no you didn't.

You're confusing the English with technology. A backup hamburger -- in case the hamburgler steals my first one -- is not a backup of my data. A backup is a short term copy of my data. An archive is a long term copy of my data. Neither one changes after they've been created. A good backup has left the building. RAID, UPSes, generators, etc. are availability measures, not backups.