Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aa-jv's commentslogin

>fairly strong evidence

Got some?



I see a lot of fear-mongering reports from sources claiming authority.

I don't see any evidence.


What kind of evidence are you expecting? Detailed photographs of the satellites on orbit?

These are credible institutions, with their statements regarding unusual orbital movements backed up by observations made by several independent groups.


I personally don't trust elements provided by U.S. agencies and foundations since the Irak war and the "proof" they delivered to justify it.

Proxy at work is stopping me from reading most of grandparent links, so it'll have to wait for home.


The Chinese themselves blew up one of their own satellites as a test of their own capabilities. The missile was launched from the ground but targeted from orbit. They themselves say this and have since they did it 8 years ago. Your ignorance isn't an argument.

I'd like to see evidence which supports the claims and not have to rely on a call to authority fallacy[1] in order to agree with this collective-derived reality.

I have no doubt that there are weapons in space - Russian, Chinese, American - why wouldn't there be? - but I still want to see actual evidence.

None of the sources you give are impartial - all of them serve to profit from perpetuating fear of Chinese space activities.

Too often, xenophobic movements rely on authority figures to perpetuate their myths. Don't you agree?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


What evidence would satisfy you that there are weapons in space? You either have to check yourself somehow, or trust a third party. Is there a third party you trust to provide evidence?


The article from The Space Review comes pretty close to providing some actual evidence.

There are no trustworthy third parties when it comes to xenophobic agitprop.


What extra would you want from the space review article that would constitute actual evidence for you?

[flagged]


> There are lots of claims and speculation that China is developing space weapons, and there is an allusion to evidence (but no actual evidence)

Why do you keep avoiding the question?


Space Review website has malware-download ads all over the page. That spooks me.

It’s like they’ll believe any rumors about the US doing things but then need concrete evidence irrefutable evidence when it comes to its adversaries.

I do LFS every year, just to keep the chops sharp. It has been an immensely invaluable means of keeping informed with the way things are rolling in the Linux world.

Time to start trying to delineate the Rope Age?

There are plenty of white papers the human race seem unwilling to want to read on this subject, though ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson


>Copyright is a monopoly that the government creates on purpose.

Copyright doesn't just protect profit-generation with the property - it also ensures the original material is not altered over time.

Alas, this is a very useful function of copyright and basically ensures that good works remain good, and don't get easily subverted.

In this day and age, though, we've evolved better methods to ensure this alteration of original content doesn't have a negative impact (whether on the profit-making or indeed on behalf of the final user of the material).

Governments could shift from enforcing the copyright monopoly, to providing an open, public, free fingerprinting service - akin to a PKI for all content - which would allow entitites to copy materials, but also allow individuals to verify immutable materials.

>We shouldn't be handing out generational monopolies willy-nilly.

Agreed. We should, though, be making sure the end-date is set for 'verified materials' to a period appropriate for re-verification by human means ...


Copyright does no such thing. The copyright owner is free to alter or change their material at any time, or to discard it and force it to remain unused until it deteriorates and is destroyed (e.g. video game preservation is mostly done by copyright violators).

Of course it does, don't be myopic.

There is a very good reason that we all read the same copy of Orwells' 1984: because the copyright was enforced to ensure the work was not altered. This is ++good.

That the originator/owner of the copyright is still able to assert agency over their works is the end result of copyright being used effectively. That some choose to end the lifetime of their works, an entirely acceptable result of the policy mechanism.

I still maintain that its utility in preserving works outweighs the history of works being lost due to originator/owner agency. I concur, however, that there are better ways to accomplish this in this day and age ... information does want to be free, after all.

A public fingerprinting/attestation service would separate the two functions we care about: 1) letting creators monetise and control commercial exploitation for a limited time, and 2) giving everyone a reliable way to verify that a given copy matches a claimed original.

The second does not require a multi-generational monopoly, and I am not advocating for that. I do however believe that some social mechanism for ensuring the materials I care about land on my desk un-altered, is quite important.


Copyright doesn't protect a work, there's probably also a reasonable argument that exact reproduction of a work is overrated in the first place. Others could just as easily produce a verbatim copy of 1984 if there wasn't copyright. The original theatrical release of Star Wars is almost impossible to find because Lucas altered it several times. Copyright isn't protecting the work, it's letting the holders exploit a rerelease 50 years after the initial release.

Yes, copyright does protect a work - but you would have to see the point of view of the originator of the work, not the consumer.

1984 has been out of copyright in most of the world for 6 years and that, if anything, has made it easier to find an unmodified copy.

We'll get there eventually whether we like it or not. Just as soon as the current crop of AI/ML engineers retire, or .. get replaced with bots.

This breaks the language. Do you want safety or do you want expression?

My daily de-brainrot vacation is .. playing with synthesizers. Nothing gets the webs cleared out faster than a quick jam, maybe laying down a couple loops, getting some ideas fleashed out into a bigger structure.

Music-making and musicianship in general is great de-brainrot.


Starting to learn to play the keyboard was an awesome experience for me. Unfortunately I was learning on my brother's and I don't have it anymore. I think I'll gift myself one on christmas.

>were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars.

The tech industry is rife with such suckers. We wouldn't have the wealth we have without them.


Who was it again that said money is thrown out the window without any concern, you just have to stand below the right window? It was true then and it is true now. Really helps if the money you are throwing out isn't your own, too.

"Terrorist" is just this century's n-word. Racists in Congress couldn't use the n-word so openly any more, so they invented a new word - same effect.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: