Which, incidentally fits the dictionary definition of a facist state.

Atmospheric diffraction used to be far more serious on earthly telescopes than it is now due to correction mechanisms and software. The flickering of stars due to atmospheric vagaries can be almost entirely eliminated. You want to bet on the fact that a lot of money has not been put into making that go the other way?

Atmospheric attenuation should not be a big issue. The point of having a ground based laser system is that you can pump a lot of power into either a flash strike or a persistent strike. Orbit to orbit? How much power can a satellite pack? I honestly do not know.

However, as we do not know it was a laser it is moot at this point.

I do not know. I am not putting forward any theory. Actually, reading back, I did. But I mentioned it only as a possibility. I am certainly not wedded to it

Whatever caused it caused it. That is the only thing I am certain of. People seem to think I favour a particular theory. I do not, Sorry to give any other impression.

Perhaps, perhaps not. An active working public satellite, well I doubt it. An old worthless, past its busby date satellite, maybe.

But there are lots of candidates besides China.

But I am not making a claim for either cause or villain. We do not know enough and probably never will.

This was a discussion about the use of Occam's Razor. How is your reply relevant?

There is no claim from me that it was or was not at battery failure, that it was or was not an energy weapon.

But if were trying to send a message I would not be taking something out that was provocatively useful and expensive. That might get a reply that I don't want. You do not take out a person's (state, country, empire) assets, you demonstrate the capability to take them out. It is a good deal less provative and sends you message more clearly.

The principle of Occam's Razor is not "simplicity" vs. "complexity". It states not to multiply entities unnecessarily, but that does not equate to simplicity.

We have never seen a battery failure like this before (and there are very many of that type out there) so we are creating a new entity with introducing this type of battery failure to our list of known entities. That does not mean (under the principle of Occam's Razor) that it did not happen that way (battery failure) only that we should consider other possibilities that do not include introducing that entity.

Lasers, enemies, interest in dominance, all the other entities required for it to be an attack already exist as known entities. As such it is something to be examined not dismissed. Occam's Razor suggests that this latter hypothesis be examined prior to the former. And that is all it suggests.

Occam's Razor does not determine between simplicity and complexity. The simplest explanation for lightning is that "God did it". Our modern explanation for lightning is incredibly complex. Which do you think is accurate? Which one better satisfies Occam's Razor?

Given all the crap that is going down all over the place right now, someone making a point does not really require introducing anything new and doesn't seem unlikely. Nor does a simple battery failure seem unlikely. But Occam's Razor is not the tool to use here. If we try we wind up in the Procrustean Bed of refining our problem to suit one solution or the other.

Best wishes, sorry I am a bit Aspie here.

Which is simpler? No one knows. Too many unknowns and imponderables. As a guess I would think the latter more likely.

Micro meteor a very unlikely option. There was heating before the explosion. A laser or its ilk? Quite possible. Now who would want to demonstrate the capacity to destroy space and orbital assets easily and cheaply at this political juncture? Russia, China, North Diarrhoea, Iran? I wonder what part of the world it was over?

Well, this IS /. By now, Windows people should be using Linux, Linux people should be using BSD and BSD users should have moved on to Plan 9,,,

Its a joke Joyce...

Errr... You claim to be a scientist and yet you say "All good scientists are skeptics at heart; they require strong empirical evidence to be convinced about a theory," .

Circular definition, circular argument. Also, false. Many scientists (like Darwin for example) form a theory and then look for empirical evidence to test that theory. Next time start that sentence with "In my opinion" and you get away with it. You didn't and you don't.

Reading your article, it says nothing. I would not hire you on the basis of what you have written here.

Pardon me if that seems rude but it was in my opinion, too superficial to ignore.

Oh! By the way, what you do has had a title for a generation. You are an analyst doing what analysts do. Analyse data.

Why are you sure that I was brought up "all or nothing"? I wasn't at all. I fact I am the result of a cross "all or nothing".

But twisting my words will not help you. A law is all or nothing. You obey it or you don't.

You seem to think that if a government passes a law that you disagree with then you are not required or obliged to obey it and that it has no right to make those laws And that appears to me to be exceptionalism. You are not a special little snowflake - no one is.

Your second paragraph is not just poor grammar, it is so badly written that it is ambiguous and incomprehensible. I would not mind the former but the latter makes it impossible to address. Please use either american, australian or english, I can handle those. If you meant what I think you meant then a contract may be legally binding but it is not a law.

I am an Australian and there are many "socialist" laws here. Thank FSM. There are consumer protection organisations that work - they actually have power. And more importantly there are laws and protections that you cannot sign away regardless of what any contract might say. For example, Apple computers offer a one year guarantee. But, so far, the consumer protection have decided that it is not long enough. So, if an Apple fails within three or so years then Apple will repair or replace if they cannot prove you damaged it. Another example, if a change in licence (or fees) makes a change that means you can no longer use a device or software in the way you intended and had been doing, it is simply invalid and unenforcable. Another, long and frequent changes to click-throughs are considered unfair and pernicious. Another, Any sold or rented item must be suitable for the purposes for which it was sold.

Your third paragraph I agree with you mostly but there is a nominal social contract that varies location to location that you really cannot avoid. In many cases it would be better to conform or move. e.g. A lot of people moved to Canada when conscripted in the 70's.

Interesting thing, while I was answering you I got a text from my phone company telling me they intend to turn on roaming for me and giving me a web address to change that. I have responded to the text that I do not want it and making me responsible for seeing it remains off wastes my time. Since I have told them (even if it is not by their method of choice) I do not want it, if they ever bill me for it their bill will be wastepaper.

Now you might call it a nanny state but I call it one where citizens have inviolable rights.

Eavesding? Wiretapping? Not a government? Do not pass Go......

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. It is the governments job to govern - not rule - the country or relevant state. That is by very definition. It is a GOVERMENT. Do you notice the similarities in spelling? While yes, I have time to look at this spy tv stuff but I do not have time for everything or even most things. Nor do you. So if you want the government to have no part in protecting you then say what you really want. I.e. no government, anarchy. Luckily for you there are older and wiser persons who have seen the miseries war and anarchy create so you are protected and shielded by them as much as possible.

Oh child, are you not aware that there have been eavesdropping laws for centuries? Wiretapping laws (Samsung is not the NSA) across the world. So, YES, BLOODY YES, this would be illegal in many of the world's juristrictions. "But you signed....." Explicitly does not work as in many places signing away a right is legally invalid.

Dunno about greasemonkey but Adblock only deletes from the stream. It does not add to it, so it should be ok. That might depend on precedents if different jurist fictions though.