Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:very important (Score 1) 109

by WindBourne (#47535321) Attached to: Dutch Court Says Government Can Receive Bulk Data from NSA
Oh, I agree with you.
I worked on aspects of the US PAT act. As such, I became aware of some of capabilities (snowden released more than I knew, but has missed other things; thank god). NSA having them is not a fear to me, BUT, I always thought that they needed a LOT OF OVERSIGHT. Sadly, once the act went through, the GOP pretty much removed CONgressional oversight of the NSA. That was their way of disavowing responsibility for their actions. But, I have no doubt that many terrorists actions were caught. In fact, I suspect that this is one of those, though others claim that it is not likely.

BUT, the idea that ANY of this equipment could be turned over to police, FBI, DEA, etc is just TERRIFYING. Oddly, a number of the GOP have called for just that, which I can not image a worst situation. We would have a true police state (which in many aspects, I think that we can argue that we already are in one).

As to the Dutch sitation, if that data is limited to say another intelligence group and not a local police group, it makes good sense. After all, the goal of groups like NSA and GCHQ is not to go after local citizens, but to find others from outside of the nation that are threats to their nations.

Comment: Re:That was the point (Score 1) 109

by WindBourne (#47523093) Attached to: Dutch Court Says Government Can Receive Bulk Data from NSA
Which is really not all that bad.
I would rather NSA, who has no powers, spy on me, than FBI, or even worse, the local police.
Taking it further, I have less issues with say GCHQ spying on me. Why? Because not only do they not have any powers, but, they have no INTEREST in me, unless I am up to something that will be seriously detrimental to UK, or other western nations.

Comment: This is why western nations knowingly allow ... (Score 1) 109

by WindBourne (#47523053) Attached to: Dutch Court Says Government Can Receive Bulk Data from NSA
NSA to spy. Of course, I doubt that Germany KNEW that we were listening in on their gov officials, to which they absolutely should be mad. But, I suspect that NSA is still allowed to spy all over Europe. I would not be surprised though, if we have a few new treaties.

Comment: Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA? (Score 5, Informative) 49

by WindBourne (#47518097) Attached to: SpaceX Releases Video of Falcon Rocket's Splashdown
Actually, I would agree, except for where you claim that SpaceX has done nothing new.
For starters, NOBODY has taken anything as large as the first stage to space and landed it under power on earth. This is absolutely a first.
Secondly, they have the cheapest launches going. Why? Because they automated heavily. That has not been done.
Thirdly, no escape system has been a pusher system ever before (though boeing is attempting it as well).
Fourth, no capsule has landed under power on earth. If he succeeds at that, it will be a first.
Fifth. nobody has successfully launched a rocket with 28 engines. If Falcon heavy succeeds, it will be a first.
Sixth, nobody has built a full-flow staged combustion engine using methane. SpaceX is working on just that, with raptor.

Now, do not get me wrong. I support NASA, as does most ppl from SpaceX. BUT, to claim that SpaceX is not doing anything innovative, is just as wrong as those that knock NASA.

Comment: Re:GPS needed for everything (Score 1) 118

by WindBourne (#47484637) Attached to: Preparing For Satellite Defense
Nearly all of it. THey have interia guidance systems for dealing with this. By the time that an ICBM is in space, they are no longer using GPS.

Now as to conventional stuff, we have multiple ways of triangulating and controlling locations. If GPS is taken out, then the battle field will still be OK. Where GPS really helps is if you want to change a cruise missile, etc in-route to a different target and you do not have an active targeting system.

Comment: WRONG. (Score 2, Informative) 118

by WindBourne (#47484609) Attached to: Preparing For Satellite Defense
The route that they are going, is NOT defensive. It is OFFENSIVE. Look, lets say that the west decides to launch against China. By the time that China realizes this, the ICBMs are on their way and have already switched off from sats and are working with intertia systems.

Where anti-sat systems come into play, from a military pov, is knocking out the enemies eyes and communications PRIOR to your launching first strike.
China is busy developing a first strike set-up, that is useless for defense.

In addition, it is now known by the general public that China has active nuclear work going on. They can claim only 300 warheads, but, why hide a nuke facility underground and by a lake then? There was no reason for it, UNLESS you are up to things that get around treaties.

Comment: The scary part about this (Score 1) 118

by WindBourne (#47484547) Attached to: Preparing For Satellite Defense
is that the anti-sat systems are really only useful in a FIRST ATTACK.
China is NOT thinking of MAD. They are planning and designing a first strike system.
This WILL lead to a war between the wests and China, along with China's Allies (north Korea, Iran, and whom ever else China is sharing nuke secrets with).

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...