Comment Re:Water doesn't always work (Score 1) 184
Comment Re:The Seattle model (Score 1) 227
Comment Re:How soon before something is done about it thou (Score 1) 398
Comment Re:Prediction comes true for me (Score 1) 619
Comment Re:The solution is simple: (Score 1) 185
Comment Re:The Atomic Bomb (Score 1) 343
Comment Re:Wishful thinking (Score 1) 591
Comment Re:Space Elevator? (Score 1) 52
Comment Re:Special situations (Score 1) 1049
Comment Re:Meh. Dwarf Fortress did it first. (Score 2, Informative) 151
Comment Re:One of two options (Score 1) 650
There are no methods for doing so which are both lawful and effective.
It is called "voting".
Seriously, get a like minded group of people together and work to change the law(s) you don't like.
Comment Re:imaging issues (Score 1) 417
"Also, why take up valuable satellite and computer resources to track ice floes? If there is free time on those platforms, it is a failure of CIA management to properly schedule them for tasks that are a part of that agency's objectives."
I suspect that most spy satellites are in polar orbits, so that they cover the entire Earth's surface once every 24 hours, as the Earth rotates underneath them. Assuming this is the case, then most of the time the satellites will not be over an area that is of interest to the intelligence community, so scheduling scientific photographs during that period (assuming they happen to be over an area of scientific interest) makes use of a satellite that would otherwise be doing absolutely nothing.
As for taking up valuable computer resources, I don't think that is really a problem. The communication antennas cost the same if they are being used or if they are not being used, so the only real costs to taking these images are the electricity used to power the receivers and the ground-side servers that store the images, and the cost of any personnel-hours required to declassify an image. Frankly, they might have the entire declassification process automated: if the picture is not of a predefined sensitive location, lower its resolution and send it off to the scientists.
Comment Re:Second Life died when it mimicked real life (Score 1) 209
I'll have to take a peek at EO
Comment Re:Android sales since 2007 are up ERROR%! (Score 1) 445
> For a brand new product vs an iconic powerhouse, that is little short of amazing.
I look at it the other way: a brand new product SHOULD be doing well compared to a similar product that is three years old and is largely unchanged.* "Iconic powerhouse" or not, a new product should be doing SOMETHING other than just sitting there getting crushed.
* Other than GPS, videorecording, and 3rd-party apps--which OTHER smartphones had BEFORE the iPhone was even out (so their introduction, while nice, wasn't earth-shattering)--little new of substance has been added to the iPhone since its introduction in January 2007. (Plus faster networking and a better camera and more storage, but that's just "it gets incrementally faster/better over time" like ANY technology.)