Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Skylab $400 Littering Fine Paid By DJ

astroengine writes "Space Disco speaks with a Californian radio DJ about his role in raising, and paying, NASA's 30-year old littering fine levied by a Western Australian town. Skylab parts fell on Esperance in 1979, but the space agency's refusal to pay $400 has resulted in an entertaining annual grudge. Now the Barstow radio DJ is guest of honor at this weekend's 30th anniversary celebrations in Oz and the two small towns at opposite ends of the Pacific will be twinned... all because Skylab had a messy re-entry..."

111 comments

  1. Tough Luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you don't want America's garbage raining down on you, you are going to have to defeat us on the field of battle.

    What's that? You haven't printed trillions of dollars to build up an absurdly capable military?

    I suggest you grab a helmet and dig yourself a bunker, mate.

  2. Simpsons by BigJClark · · Score: 4, Funny


    This story reads like a Simpsons' episode.

    --

    Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    1. Re:Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I met some Australians who truly loved Simpson's but still thought the "Boot" episode went too far.

    2. Re:Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you tell them to lighten up?

    3. Re:Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told them to be happy like Steve Irwin.

    4. Re:Simpsons by DeskLazer · · Score: 1

      Simpsons DID IT!

    5. Re:Simpsons by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      No, he told them not to tread on him, true story...

    6. Re:Simpsons by Mr.+Tom+Guycot · · Score: 0

      Don't they know that disparaging the Boot is a bootable offense?

    7. Re:Simpsons by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I didn't think so. Everything they cover gets the same treatment.

    8. Re:Simpsons by Javaman59 · · Score: 1

      I met some Australians who truly loved Simpson's but still thought the "Boot" episode went too far.

      Did they also warn you about the drop bears, and hoop snakes?

      --
      I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
  3. Re:Wait Until NASA Is Fined For +1, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternatively, they may purchase from me, carbon emission credits for the total of Euro 1,000,000,000 .

    You've been printing your own credits too?

  4. You know they need better budget managers when... by panoptical2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    NASA needs DJs to raise $400 for a littering fine applied 30 years ago.

  5. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have been to Barstow, a hot hot hot overgrown truck stop in the middle of California's central valley.
    This genius found a way to escape to australia for a bit, kudos to him.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  6. Littering? Really? by Blixinator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do they also give fines for littering to people who wreck their cars and leave debris on the side of the road? I don't mean the whole car, but stuff like smashed headlights and windows.

    --
    "The Y chromosome is genetic. The odds are very good that if you are male then your father was too." -Internet Commenter
    1. Re:Littering? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, BadAnalogyGuy has a sockpuppet account.

    2. Re:Littering? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If somebody knowingly left debris on the side of the road - not quite deliberately, but after a deliberate action they knew what lead to things like smashed headlights etc. falling off -, and then refused to clear it up... should they not receive a fine?

      Put another way: why DIDN'T NASA clean up their debris? And no, "they're too far away and it'd be too expensive for them to do so" is not an excuse: just let them hire a local contractor. I know if China's space agency or whatever let debris fall on MY town, I'd expect them to pay someone to get rid of it again, too. Why should my taxes pay for that?

    3. Re:Littering? Really? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...stuff like smashed headlights and windows.

      Where I come from, E-class (emergency-class) wrecker license tags, the ones that allow you to legally respond to car wrecks, are highly prized, being considered virtually a license to print money. Because of that, the wrecker drivers are perfectly willing to shoulder the extra burden of post-wreck cleanup. To keep your E-tag, you have to clean up the miscellaneous parts littering the road after a wreck. Generally, the last step in towing away a wrecked car involves the wrecker driver using a large pushbroom to clean off the roadway.

    4. Re:Littering? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't have to get anyone to pick up the pieces of Columbia. They had citizens do that for them. But in that case, they wanted the debris. I guess NASA was never taught to pick up its toys when they were done playing with them; unless they're part of an investigation into the cause of a massive failure of said toys.

    5. Re:Littering? Really? by Zebai · · Score: 1

      Its difficult tell from the various articles, but it seems as if it was no single piece of debris but a great deal of pieces of the station survived reentry and was scattered around. It is unlikely they bothered to retrieve and pick up any of it so if your broken down car was shattered into 100 pieces and spread across 10 counties and you only cleaned up the pieces that were important you would be fined too.

    6. Re:Littering? Really? by luke_simmo · · Score: 1

      Not sure, but a friend of mine was fined (in Australia, coincidentally) when his surfboard flew off the top of his car and shattered all over the freeway. Adds insult to injury ... They seem to have a fine for everything in Oz.

    7. Re:Littering? Really? by tzhuge · · Score: 1

      Umm... that could be considered driving with an unsecured load. I don't think Oz is the only place you might be fined for that.

    8. Re:Littering? Really? by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, they fine you for littering if you leave your bumper on the road after an accident. They also bill you for repairing the dividers, signposts, and lamp posts that you destroyed in an accident. Utah did that to my parents when they got into a car accident. Utah could get reimbursement from the federal government only by showing they exhausted other sources of funding, including billing accident victims.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:Littering? Really? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do this in the UK too.
      Whats more, they now add a £15 surcharge to speeding fines etc. to fund "compensation for the victims of crime". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5225133/Fined-motorists-to-be-hit-with-15-victims-surcharge.html
      This comes as they are rolling out a huge expansion of speed cameras, including "ANPR" (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) which time your car point-to-point, over many miles, and handily also record your (and everybody else's) vehicle movements for 5 years at police central command.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    10. Re:Littering? Really? by luke_simmo · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the speeding/red light cameras everywhere & parking/train/J-walking fines that seem to get dished out at a ridiculous rate. I'm saving a fortune living in Wisconsin.

    11. Re:Littering? Really? by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they catch you, they will.

    12. Re:Littering? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In New Zealand, someone who has an accident is obliged to clean up glass/foo on the road within 24 hours of the event: or arrange for someone else to do it for them.

    13. Re:Littering? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California if you left the debris on the road without paying a wrecker to clean it up, then yes, you would be fined. Common sense really.

    14. Re:Littering? Really? by robo.cowp · · Score: 1

      Because fining people for breaking the law is a strange idea...?
      Those crazy Aussies!

      --
      resist. unlearn. defy.
    15. Re:Littering? Really? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Once someone represented NASA entered the community, they would be liable for the littering fine. Even if it's a contractor from the community operating in NASA's interest. If the fine wasn't imposed, they probably would have contracted with someone for the clean up just to examine wreckage.

    16. Re:Littering? Really? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Here in Melbourne there used to be battles on the street between tow truck drivers. It was absolute mayhem. Then the state government forced an allocation system on the tow trucks. Then the truck drivers figured out the algorithm it was using. Now its kind of an information war based on who can do a better job of gaming the system.

    17. Re:Littering? Really? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      They can do, yes. Western Australia has on the spot littering fines for any litter what-so-ever. Of course, you have to be caught and some bastard actually has to write you up.

    18. Re:Littering? Really? by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so much that, but making new laws just so you can fine people and increase the governmental revenue stream seems to be the way to go here. In the Melbourne CBD, there are around 500 parking inspectors wandering around the city from 6am till 1am, and if your car is parked somewhere for more than 3 minutes after it's allocated time, $110 fine. Even at 12:45am... in a 1 hr parking spot that I'd parked in at 11:50pm, I got fined - the onus fell on me to prove that I had been there less than one hour and I had no way of doing so. I remember this thing called presumption of innocence being taught in school... seems that it's the complete opposite in reality.


      not that i ever paid that fine... arseholes!

      --
      ... wait, what?
    19. Re:Littering? Really? by deniable · · Score: 1

      "$40 on the spot fine and up to $400 in the courts" is the way I remember it. Hmm, that 400 looks familiar.

    20. Re:Littering? Really? by robo.cowp · · Score: 1

      What evidence have you that the law you ran afoul of was "new"? Or that said law was made "just so you can fine people and increase the governmental revenue stream"?
      Receiving a fine in the specific instance you describe is unpleasant, but unlikely to be proof supporting either of your claims.

      --
      resist. unlearn. defy.
  7. Just wait! by ATestR · · Score: 1

    If they think that Skylab was bad, just wait until NASA crashes the ISS into the middle of Sydney!

    --
    âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. Re:Just wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it IS Sydney or the Bush!

    2. Re:Just wait! by system1111 · · Score: 5, Funny

      crashes has such negative connotations. NASA prefers you use the term terrestrial parking. Thanks!

    3. Re:Just wait! by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      I don't think de-orbiting means what you think it means. They did not say "plan to re-entry the ISS." I think de-orbit simply means the ISS will exit Earthly orbit and head off into space on some tangent to be determined by a bunch of really smart scientists.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    4. Re:Just wait! by ctetc007 · · Score: 1

      Except that terrestrial parking is waaay too broad. The space shuttle also does terrestrial parking (Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury too, if you're talking about terrestrial as in Earth, not land). In fact, I do terrestrial parking everyday. How else am I going to get out of my car?

    5. Re:Just wait! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Don't joke about that.

      The original Gundam involved an incident where a space colony was dropped on Australia and wiped out Sydney. :( Now that we have an original Gundam unit sitting in tokyo....

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Just wait! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I don't think de-orbiting means what you think it means. They did not say "plan to re-entry the ISS." I think de-orbit simply means the ISS will exit Earthly orbit and head off into space on some tangent to be determined by a bunch of really smart scientists.

      Says who? De-orbit means either send it off into space or send it crashing to the ground. NASA is likely to do whichever is cheaper, especially when their budget gets cut even further over the next few years.

      Since the Aussies seem to have liked the last one we send them, judging by their art in that photo, we should send them this one too. :)

    7. Re:Just wait! by caerwyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ISS doesn't have the power budget to get out of earth orbit. De-orbit will definitely mean controlled re-rentry. It really won't be that hard, since they'll surely be able to do it in pieces.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    8. Re:Just wait! by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      NASA has referred to returning to Earth as re-entry for as long as I can remember. Unless you other /.ers have some swaying argument to suggest that this newish term "de-orbiting" means something other than staying in space but leaving Earth's orbit, I'm kindly sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    9. Re:Just wait! by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Wow.

    10. Re:Just wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original Gundam involved an incident where a space colony was dropped on Australia and wiped out Sydney.

      Thus doing hundreds of billions of dollars in improvements?

    11. Re:Just wait! by Daravon · · Score: 1

      ISS will exit Earthly orbit and head off into space

      HAH! They're learning how to spend their money wisely. Not only do we no longer have to support the ISS, we also get to take credit for the first ruskies on Mars AND we get a good laugh at Russia's expense.

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    12. Re:Just wait! by system1111 · · Score: 1

      WHOOSHHHHH. Was that the ISS flying over head???

    13. Re:Just wait! by jvonk · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like this example from NASA's own site? I found that in 15 seconds on google.

      Where do you think they would send the ISS? A Lagrange point? Please.

      It is going to be thrown away just after it is complete. I think it is sick, but they have been talking about this ever since the 1990's. I remember reading about this planned destruction at age 12 in Popular Science--even before they had launched the first component. I was very disgusted with our "progress" in space exploration, then as now.

    14. Re:Just wait! by ctetc007 · · Score: 1

      You guys obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. Your euphemism for a bad thing could also be used to describe some other good thing (successful landing). I don't want my good landings lumped in with your crashes.

      In order for this to work, you need to come up with some phrase like "very rough landing." Yes, it still includes a list of not so bad occurrences, but it's a lot less encompassing.

      Mr. Anonymous Trolling Coward, I indeed have a very healthy number of close friends. You really should go find some better spies to stalk me.

    15. Re:Just wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the correct euphemism is "lithobraking".

    16. Re:Just wait! by deniable · · Score: 1

      I thought they called it "repositioning to a (much) lower orbit."

    17. Re:Just wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about: Materials Donation from High Altitude (recipient chosen by lottery)

      Then bill AU for the material delivery

  8. art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like they are using it as a decorattive piece of art... not abandonded trash.

  9. SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by powerlord · · Score: 4, Funny

    Skylab parts fell on Esperance in 1979, but the space agency's refusal to pay $400 has resulted in an entertaining annual grudge.

    Just wait till they DeOrbit ISS in 2016. I think I know where the "miscalculated" orbit might end up.

    I expect the headline "Small New Zealand town vaporized as a result of Kilometer-Mile error made computing the ISS re-entry trajectory."

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    1. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      de-orbit != re-entry

      I expect the headline "ISS sets course for the Moon."

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    2. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by ctetc007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Boosting it out of Earth orbit is much more expensive than doing a retro-burn to allow it to fall back to Earth. Do leave orbit, you have to give it enough energy to reach escape velocity. To have it fall back to Earth, just a "small" nudge to slow down and come back down.

    3. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Apollo missions put about 30,000 kg into lunar orbit. ISS has a mass just above 300,000 kg.

      So it is entirely possible, but it sounds awful expensive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by mfrank · · Score: 1

      It would take too much fuel for them to move it away from Earth. They will deorbit it so it re-enters over the Pacific. They didn't do it with Skylab because they didn't have rockets/fuel to control when and where it re-entered.

    5. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Sure. But they said de-orbit not re-enter. So no.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    6. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by woodchip · · Score: 1

      re-enter is a subset of de-orbit. So most probably yes.

    7. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      No doubt caused by conversion error, miles to kilometers.

    8. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by beef+curtains · · Score: 1

      de-orbit - v.: to remove from orbit

      If the ISS is somehow hurled out into space, is it still in orbit? No.

      If the ISS is allowed to let Earth's gravity do its thing, is it still in orbit? No.

      Now tell me, which do you think is cheaper & easier: to shuttle a bunch of fuel out to the ISS, then use that fuel to rocket that thing out of orbit in such a way that it flies off into space? Or to use what fuel it already has onboard to send the ISS, one module at a time, into controlled re-entry?

      Please feel free to explain which portion of the compound word "de-orbit" explicitly points to "send out into space" as opposed to "allow to re-enter the atmostphere".

      --
      Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    9. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Shh! You're going to blow his chance to try to look smart by showing off half-baked knowledge misinterpreted from something he heard in passing, probably on a third-rate Skiffy B-movie (possibly on the Skiffy, er, Sci-Fi, er, SyFy Channel). How can he lord it over his equally ignorant peers when they come to visit his mom's basement if you're going to bring up something as irrelevant as facts!?

      Although one could argue that objects on the surface of the Earth still move in a more-or-less elliptical path around the Earth (a circle can be considered a degenerate form of ellipse, after all), so, in a sense, landing is not de-orbiting as much as it is changing orbits. If I still lived in my mom's basement, I think I could turn that into a pretty convincing argument, but I don't, so I won't.

      (I could also point out that words sometimes develop more specialized meanings than their roots might suggest, i.e. "defenestrate" has become a little more specific than "unwindowing", but that would just be silly, so I won't bother.) :)

    10. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      I live in New Zealand, you insensitive clod!

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    11. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Well NZ survived having the Apollo 13 LM almost dropped on them. Maybe they will get lucky.

    12. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I believe NASA had a plan to safely deorbit Skylab however the outer atmosphere expanded due to a strong sunspot cycle on the sun, resulting in more drag and fireworks over central Australia. IIRC another fragment was found this decade on a remote cattle station, but NASA weren't interested in getting it back.

    13. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They survived something almost happening to them? Grats!

    14. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by Painted · · Score: 1

      NASA planned on continuing use of Skylab, in fact one of the first missions for the Space Shuttle was to boost Skylab into a much higher orbit. That mission would have been No. 2 or 3, if I recall correctly, before the Shuttle was "certified" for anything other that testing. Unfortunately, as you said, atmospheric drag was higher than expected and the thing crashed before the first flight of the Shuttle, due to delays in the Shuttle program.

      It's really a pity, too- either original plan would have saved Skylab- original expectations were that it would have stayed in orbit past the actual launch of the Shuttle, and original plans for first flight of the Shuttle would have had first launch before the actual destruction of Skylab... It would have given the US a space station/shuttle combination that had an appreciable fraction of the size of the ISS in the 1980's.

      --
      http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
    15. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Chance? I didn't write the article that chose not to use the word re-ent[ry|er]. I simply commented on the author's choice of the word de-orbit. I guess that you being my peer... sorry, SORRY equally ignorant peer... were too stupid to pick up on that.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    16. Re:SkyLab II: ISS Strikes Back by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      I picked up on what happened just fine--it was pointed out that you were wrong, and that "de-orbit" was a valid, correct, and even standard term to use there, and you still don't seem to get it.

  10. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by Niris · · Score: 2, Informative

    Being from Fresno, CA, I completely agree. Also, Barstow isn't in the central valley. Central valley ends out near Bakersfield, and Barstow is a bit more southeast from there towards Vegas.

  11. Interest? by ctetc007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about the accrued interest on the fine? I also wonder, if they had not dropped the fine, could there have been some sort of arrest warrant, and who would've been the one to arrest?

    1. Re:Interest? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Robert A. Frosch, head of NASA at the time (11 July 1979), or pres Jimmy Carter. Also, you might include the last crew; Carr, Pogue, and Gibson. They abandoned a moving vehicle, and let it crash...;)

    2. Re:Interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first person to ask, naturally.

    3. Re:Interest? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      But the violation was committed in space... not in Australia's jurisdiction. Perhaps Australia should have sued SPACE for letting the debris fall in their country.

    4. Re:Interest? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Considering the number of meteorites recovered from the Nullabour I think we could be on to a good earner there.

    5. Re:Interest? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Vger

  12. Hometown publicity by SwingMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had to comment, just because it's pretty damn rare for my hometown to get a mention anywhere, let along on Slashdot :P This was a pretty big event at the time - Nasa had a team of people on the ground and were aksing for bits of debris to be bought in for analysis. My mother took a few pieces in and forgot about it, several months later they sent them back mounted on a nice wall plaque identifying which part of the space station it was from :)

  13. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gotta love government bureaucracy. I guarantee you it was supposed to be approved by some middle manager who left/got transferred before getting around to doing it - and no one ever bothered to check after that.

  14. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by nizo · · Score: 1

    Aren't Bakersfield and Barstow known as the armpits of California?

  15. It's kind of sad by Nimey · · Score: 1

    the number of posters to this story who don't realize that the fine was a joke.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:It's kind of sad by deniable · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we got a foreigner to pay it. Bonus points. (Actually, knowing councils, some poor bugger is still trying to sort out the paperwork.)

  16. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by Niris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pretty sure Fresno's on that list, too. All hellholes.

  17. Foreign governments don't pay their parking tics by Dr_Ken · · Score: 3, Informative

    Foreign governments don't pay their parking tics in NYC or Washington either mainly because they don't have to. Diplomatic immunity bars local gov from messing with them. Also It would be interesting to send a FOIA request to NASA to see if the town ever went through proper diplomatic channels to make a claim against the US gov.

    --
    "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
  18. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by Hatta · · Score: 1

    I bet the town could have sold the Skylab debris for more than $400.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  19. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

    I prefer to think of them as a little taste of West Virginia three hours from the coast.

  20. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    That's pretty good budget management when you get someone else to pay.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  21. Re:Foreign governments don't pay their parking tic by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Also It would be interesting to send a FOIA request to NASA to see if the town ever went through proper diplomatic channels to make a claim against the US gov.

          I don't seem to remember Skylab spending any time in Australian customs and excise, or being reviewed by an inspector, before entering Australian territory, either.

          Your post is silly.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  22. I already have a bunker, you insensitive clod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA hasn't been in a war since the civil war.

    Of course, USA has sent soldiers across the ocean, many of them have even died. There have been some financial consequences about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the world wars there were even consequences to the society as a whole as women had to go to the factories, etc... USA has participated in wars, yeah. But not been in one in centuries.

    When American soldiers were in the world war they didn't need to fear that their homes would be bombed down. When they are in Iraq they don't need to fear that advancing enemy soldiers would rape, imprison or mutilate their families and they don't have to fear that their hometown has been bombed when they get back. And I'm not talking about some two towers crashing but actually entire cities in ruins. It's not nearly the same thing.

    As such, USA hasn't taken precautions in case war would some day hit them. There aren't much bunkers around and so on. There are some, of course, and some people have private bunkers but even still.

    I live in a country that was bombed during the world wars and it can be seen in many little things. Most importantly, all apartment buildings here have bunkers large enough to house everyone in the building and strong enough to endure the whole building's weight falling on them (even though that would be impossible to happen).

    1. Re:I already have a bunker, you insensitive clod by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      As such, USA hasn't taken precautions in case war would some day hit them. There aren't much bunkers around and so on. There are some, of course, and some people have private bunkers but even still.

      What? Did you forget about duck and cover? There are so many fall out shelters sitting around designed to handle a nuclear strike just miles away they they have been re purposed as stores and hotels and crap. I have two of them on my property that was capable of handling 80 people each ran by the civil air patrol. One is used as a farrowing house now and the other is just sitting there.

      Almost every city has them. A lot of the cities even require a few to remain the way they were. You might look around and see a yellow triangle that says fall out shelter on it marking the entrance way to one inside of stores, government buildings and so on. When I was in school, we had one in the basement of the school large enough to pack the entire school in there for 2 weeks at a time without outside assistant. In our duck and cover instructions, we were given maps of the city with all the fallout shelter locations on them and even had pop quizzes over them.

      Of course I live within 200 miles of 3 air force bases (one decommissioned) and an army base so we might have had a few more precautions. But you can about guarantee that are quite a few bunkers around in America. Besides, ever county in every state has a national guard armory that will have weapons (if you follow their orders) and bunkers larger enough to take civilians in. Maybe not all of them, but it isn't like a full scale war will last long in the US either. The second amendment and the structure of the US constitution made sure of that.

      I live in a country that was bombed during the world wars and it can be seen in many little things. Most importantly, all apartment buildings here have bunkers large enough to house everyone in the building and strong enough to endure the whole building's weight falling on them (even though that would be impossible to happen). That's good and all, but you have to think about some things, we have over the horizon missile systems that can shoot down incoming aircraft before we can even see them with optical magnification. We have early warning systems in place and advanced warning systems that will function in the event of a nuclear EMP. The tactics of WWII will not be able to survive a war with modern defenses like what is scattered around Europe, Russia, the US and so on. Canada is even someone shielded by the US defense system and through a operation right of way, they enjoy the ability to rely on us to some degree and not keep as large of a military. Even Europe against the US will not be a war like WWII was. Nuclear weapons ensure that. As a last resort, or maybe even sooner depending on how scared out leader are, they will be the game changer. IF we ever get our missile defense systems fully operations and accurate, even that will be completely different in the future.

    2. Re:I already have a bunker, you insensitive clod by plnix0 · · Score: 1

      The second amendment ... made sure of that.

      If we can keep it.

    3. Re:I already have a bunker, you insensitive clod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a NG armory has a 'shelter' it is accidental at best. And a vast majority of them, while they do have weapons on site, do not have any ammunition for those weapons.

      It is flatly false that every county has a National Guard Armory. Most don't. A very few have an Armory and some of those 'armories' are little more than a collection of classrooms and storage lockers.

      And those 'shelters sitting around designed to handle a nuclear strike'-- that's horsehockey. A basement is a 'shelter' but isn't 'designed to handle a nuclear strike' and that's what most of those shelters are.... basements.

    4. Re:I already have a bunker, you insensitive clod by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      USA hasn't been in a war since the civil war.

      You lie! I distinctly remember the Soviets invading back in the 80's. And it didn't even take our army to defeat them, just Patrick Swayze and a plucky bunch of teenagers.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  23. Get off my lawn by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Informative

    So I started to read the article and immediately thought "oh yeah, I remember when that came down". Then I read the part about the 30yr Anniversary. Damn I am getting old.

  24. Re:Foreign governments don't pay their parking tic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is behind on payments to the U.N. and terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center.

    Its fun to make sentences that have no meaning!

  25. as Dr. Forrester said... by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

    In space, no one can hear you sue.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  26. two small towns at opposite ends of the Pacific by kre.86 · · Score: 1

    "two small towns at opposite ends of the Pacific"? Esperance is 3000+km from the Pacific.

  27. So... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How much money has that town made off of that particular bit of random fame?

      I'll bet it is a helluva lot more than the fine.

      (How much did they spend on pursuing the claim... *g*)

      Humans are, for the most part, fucking idiots.

      (I have karma to burn, so go ahead and mod me down if you feel you have to. Ask me if I care, fools.)

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:So... by smash · · Score: 1
      Not the point. The point, I think is that irrespective of whether or not you're a foreign entity, whilst having a presence on another country, you obey their laws. NASA dropped shit on our country (littering), they should pay for it.

      I'm sure if the roles were reversed, and Australia fired a piece of junk over at the USA, we'd have a pack of angry citizens out for blood.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:So... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful

        Then maybe there is something to be said about having a uniform code of law, on a global basis.

        Not that it's likely to happen in our lifetimes.

        While we're at it, we could put caps on damage awards, too.

        You do realize that my comment was meant in jest?

        SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  28. DJ didn't read the fine print by SlashDev · · Score: 0

    "By agreeing to pay the $400 fine, you also agree to pickup the fallen debris."

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
    1. Re:DJ didn't read the fine print by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 2, Funny

      if i had read the fine print, i'd certainly have paid the $400. hell i could recoup the cost by ebaying just one chunk of that thing. theres 300 million people in amreica, millions of whom would pay a good chunk of coin to own a piece of a space station. one mans trash...

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
  29. Re:Foreign governments don't pay their parking tic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I hope there wasn't any fresh fruit left on Skylab by the last crew. If so there is going to be trouble.

  30. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by VoltageX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So he goes to Western Australia, a hot hot hot overgrown truck (road train) stop on the edge of Australia.

    --
    "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
  31. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

    Being a foreigner, I have no clue where Barstow is exactly, but 'somewhere near Barstow' is on the edge of the desert. Definitely. And it's full of bats.

    --
    [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
  32. Re:You know they need better budget managers when. by deniable · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They probably did, but local councils like to maximise their revenue opportunities.

  33. Re:Foreign governments don't pay their parking tic by deniable · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read this as an example. The fine was a joke. Jimmy Carter called the local roadhouse to apologise. They probably had the whole population of Balladonia around the phone.

  34. not always a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of us are from the west coast (of the US), where stunts like this are applied very seriously as a means of protest. Usually by bored ex-hippies who are now rich white folks with a bug up their ass.
    Berkeley is always trying to fine someone for violating their Nuclear-free Zone ordinance. Or coerce a city contractor to sign some sort of agreement that they will immediately cease any use of any nuclear technology.