Comment Re:Because it's crossing a red line (Score 1) 159
Space was supposed to be the one place humanity didn't fight in for lots of reasons.
That was good propaganda, but space has been militarized from its earliest days. Besides the obvious like the Soviets mounting guns on their space station, space satellites have been used primarily for military purposes from reconnaissance to nuclear weapons command and control. The real reason it wasn't weaponized sooner was a gentlemen's agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. With so much nuclear command and control went through space, an attack on space assets could be seen as the first step in a nuclear attack. So therefore, neither side would touch those satellites. However, as space became more commercial as well as military missions shifting from the strategic to non-nuclear tactical purposes, that gentlemen's agreement gradually eroded.
Submission + - Pentagon Acknowledges Weapons in Space, Must Prepare for War in Cislunar Space (defenseone.com)
One article notes that "while top Space Force officials have provided few details about how U.S. forces would fight between the Earth and its moon, they have been vocal about adding sensors and capabilities to watch adversary movements there." Aaron Brynildson, a professor of space law at the University of Mississippi notes that US military officials are motivated by peer competitor activities, particularly China. “There’s a fear that recent Chinese activity on the moon and in cislunar space might outpace the United States,” Brynildson said. “China has a relay satellite in cislunar space and is performing robotic missions on the far side of the moon.” Lt. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, the head of Combat Forces Command at US Space Force, acknowledges that concern, saying “Our adversaries, our potential adversaries, such as the PRC, are actively pursuing activities in the cislunar parts of space. So that's sort of the expansion, if you will, of I would say the end zone, if you will, in the football game..."
Brynildson raises concerns about the current ambiguity around the lack of laws and policy governing space weapons. “It’s unclear what the legal restraints on the use of kinetic or non-kinetic weapons in space might be. The Outer Space Treaty doesn’t give us great answers to what factors a military action must consider,” he said. “The DoD Law of War Manual is also non-committal on the unique aspects of the space domain. At a minimum, general principles from the law of armed conflict would apply, such as only striking military-related satellites, avoiding collateral damage to civilians, etc... Ultimately, I think the first space conflict might be the time when most of these rules get written."
Comment Re:Don't inflate her ego (Score 1) 98
Comment Don't inflate her ego (Score 0) 98
Comment Re:Well come on bootlickers (Score 1, Insightful) 148
Comment So Teslas and Mini-Coopers... (Score 1) 165
Comment Re: What were these guys thinking? (Score 1) 34
Comment Immediate is Innocuous, but the Future? (Score 4, Interesting) 17
Comment Re:WTF ever happened to pilot programs?! (Score 4, Insightful) 56
It's like all of corporate America and industry is in "Bet the farm mode".
Pilot programs are for normal companies. This is Silicon Valley. Move fast, break things, then have your minions arrange the flaming wreck into an sculpture that you can declare as a success to your venture capitalist overlords.
Comment Four Way Battle Over Money (Score 2) 79
Comment Re:Not necessarily a bad thing (Score 1) 217
People on ALL social media NEED to see what the other side says just as much as their own.
Yes, but the question is how it's being represented. Are they being provided with the well articulated viewpoint shared by the vast majority of the other side they disagree with? Or are they being shown the most extreme, inflammatory edge cases of the other side which are incorrectly being portrayed as mainstream? The former can encourage debate, but the latter is just fueling an attitude of "those people are crazy, there's no way I can co-exist with them."
Comment Re:not it's not, it's because AI is a threat (Score 1) 90
What insight. Could it be because that's exactly what happens? Capitalism is literally defined by this.
Agreed, but I believe the entire "tech" industry is particularly notorious for this even by American capitalist standards. AI is emerging from a business culture that emphasizes "move fast and break things", launching half-completed, "minimally viable" products out quickly without real thought (or in the parlance of kids these days, "f--ks given") on security, privacy, or social impact. Society has figured this out, as we've seen the shift in perception of the tech industry from saviors to villains. So no one should be surprised when people have trust issues with AI firms that have emerged from that same ecosystem.
Comment Good Start but Far Short (Score 1) 67
Comment Re:Schools are designed to sort students (Score 1) 83
Our modern school system was initially designed to train good little workers for boring, repetitive assembly line work.
I mean, given that society's number one demand of the education system is to prepare students so they can find jobs, the school system is doing what's being asked of it.