For starters ships would look nothing like what you see on sci-fi shows. For example they always put the bridge exposed to the outside with panoramic views. In space that would gain you nothing and be a huge liability. Ships would not have wings and there would be no point in having a ship that was pointy on one end or the other like a sea going one.

The concept of maneuverability in space is completely unrelated to what you would have on the surface. Nothing is gained from having something that is nimble, handling in space is completely unrelated to what you would have from a ship, car or plane on the surface. Form follows function and surface type functions largely are absent in that scenario.

To answer your question you have to look at function. Are you talking about a current theoretical battle between nations in the orbit of our planet or are you talking about deep space? The answers to your questions depend entirely on the scenario and the requirements.

The catchpa is worthless against an army of Indians being paid just pennies a pop to break them. The only thing they do is annoy the script kiddies. Far better success would be had in doing pattern recognition on sign ups instead.

Reality check, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with European politics. Europe was forced into peace by the constant threat of the soviets and their occupation of the entire eastern half of the continent. One of the earliest treaties that helped establish peace in Europe was the one that founded NATO in 1949.

By your own count on the number of people killed it has been a phenomenal success. WWI alone saw an estimated 8.5 million killed and WWII saw another 20 million killed. And I'm not even including civilian casualties.

Consider that the population of the world has expanded from roughly 2 billion in WW2 to 7 billion now that is an achievement otherwise unheralded in human history. Insinuate what you will about humanity but it took nuclear weapons to bring about today's age of relative peace.

Study your history, there has never been a single year without war. This is why nukes were named 'peacemakers', it was what they did.

This is really overdue and your a fool if you think it isn't inevitable. We accept regulation for critical infrastructure like electricity and gas distribution. Why should IT be any different than any other piece of infrastructure?

I've worked with ITIL, SOX, HIPAA, SEC and a number of other regulations or standards for years. They are also largely similar in what they require, once you learn one the others are a quick learning curve. Mostly they are nothing more than attempt to codify best practices that you should be following anyways.

It's like the rail companies that cried foul when regulations required that they install safe coupling mechanisms in the 1800's. The railroads cried foul at the new expenses until they discovered that the regulations ended up saving more in labor than they can cost in parts.

They have just created a challenge in regards to just that Internet address is...

Outside of the UK, than it's fair game for a 500# bomb. The nice thing is it is even conveniently located for a nearby F-15 to get to. Who want's to starts the SeaLand Death Watch website?

I think this is a great idea for both users and the company. Users have only a single place that they have to go to for their privacy concerns. Likewise for the company they only have to have corporate counsel review one privacy policy instead of several. The company saves money and the consumer saves hassle.

Note that I'm only talking about the idea of consolidating the privacy policies themselves. I am not talking about the merit of whether or not the privacy policy is a good one or not.

In my case I was rewarded for my honesty by being promptly laid off. All things considered that was a far better solution than being tied up in court for months on end. I got another job within a few days for which I was grateful. I carried away enough experience from that large failure to lead to a successful career as a consultant. It's amazing how you can learn so much more from failure than success.

The opposite in this case, both of their cases were strong. I got dragged into the contract stuff later on to make sure that I knew what both sides were looking for.

The vendor offered in plain language that they could do the migration without needing a single field engineer. This of course was something a salesman came up with that had no basis in anything remotely realistic.

The client offered in plain language that their network migration would be completed before the vendor's contract started. The client reneged after they found out it would cost $400 per port the vendor that still had the management contract to change things out before the contract ran out.

They both had strong cases against each other, it was two fortune 25's arguing about who was more wrong, not about who was right.

The reason I got dragged into is because I produced reports on a daily basis that explained why things failed in a detailed format. They both looked at my reports and decided that they liked my judgement and would use it for daily penalty assessments. This went on for months without me knowing the repercussions of the reports I wrote each day.