Slashdot Mirror


Space Shuttle Spy Gets 15 Years

goG writes "A Chinese-born engineer was sentenced Monday to more than 15 years in prison for hoarding sensitive information about the US space shuttle with the intent of giving it to China. US District Judge Cormac Carney called Chung's crimes a matter of national security, saying he had committed a breach against the trust Boeing and the country had placed in him. Attorney Greg Staples said, 'The [People's Republic of China] is bent on stealing sensitive information from the United States and shows no sign of relenting. Only strong sentences offer any hope of dissuading others from helping the PRC get that technology.' Staples also 'noted in sentencing papers that Chung amassed a personal wealth of more than $3 million US while betraying his adopted country.'"

402 comments

  1. If only... by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only the shuttle was run by Google, they'd have a better chance of gaining access...

    1. Re:If only... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...but let the Chinese have the secrets and dump money into their program. We were getting out of the Shuttle program anyway because it is outdated and has enormous cost. At $700+ million per launch, why not just let the Chinese waste a little money?

    2. Re:If only... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The booster rockets are still pretty valuable technology regardless of the payload they are attached to.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:If only... by Talderas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going with a literal interpretation. The article says information on the space shuttle, not the boosters.

      Further, going to Boeing's page on the space shuttle, all I can tell is their involvement is strictly limited to the orbiter, not the rocket boosters.

      This leads me to the conclusion of why China would want the shuttle? Maybe there's a few secrets in the orbiter worth having, but the value of the boosters is not necessarily within Boeing's possession.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invented SRB's. Also isn't that treason, why is he still breating?

    5. Re:If only... by orasio · · Score: 1

      The rumour was that the US chose the shuttle instead of better alternatives, because it can steer orbits, much better than an ICBM.

    6. Re:If only... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the US would use the shuttle as a launch platform or delivery mechanism for nuclear weaponry?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rumour was that the US chose the shuttle instead of better alternatives, because it can steer orbits, much better than an ICBM.

      ICBMs don't orbit.

    8. Re:If only... by Publikwerks · · Score: 1

      Once they figure out how to stop him from breating, I'm sure they will

    9. Re:If only... by vlm · · Score: 1

      The booster rockets are still pretty valuable technology regardless of the payload they are attached to.

      I checked and all his 300000 pages of docs were from Boeing, not Morton Thiokol.

      I can't exactly figure out what Boeing does with the shuttle. Their web page is pure marketing bull "manufacturing the Space Shuttle" uh huh sure buddy I'm sure all those subcontractors had nothing to do with it, Boeing did it all by themselves.

      Other marketing bullshit on the Boeing web page implies they developed the space shuttle main engines, I'm sure the rocketdyne folks howl with laughter at that.

      The only "real" connection I can come up with is the shuttle carrier aircraft that ferries shuttles about is a modified 70s era 747. I would assume Boeing would have some interesting mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering data as relates to sticking huge vehicles on top of civilian transport aircraft. I suppose he could have stolen the engineering data for a 70s era 747.

      To be honest, I can't figure out what the guy stole...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:If only... by fizzup · · Score: 1

      Experience is the best teacher. How do you know they wanted learn how to build a replica, rather than learning what works and what doesn't.

    11. Re:If only... by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Currently don't? Or by definition don't?
      Surely a satellite is launched on a ballistic path?

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    12. Re:If only... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I was speculating a little much, but I don't think it is really that clear that working at Boeing meant he had no access to technical materials for other company's systems.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:If only... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I think that was his point. ICBMs don't orbit, the shuttle does. If you loaded the shuttle up with nukes it would be much more effective than a 'dumb' ICBM. Except that the technology has advanced to the point where it could be shot out of the sky now.

      --
      FGD 135
    14. Re:If only... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you loaded the shuttle up with nukes it would be much more effective than a 'dumb' ICBM.

      How much does it cost to launch a shuttle, vs. launching a bunch of ICBMs? And how many warheads can the shuttle carry and drop (remember, it takes some energy to launch them on targets)? I'm pretty sure that carpet-bombing with ICBMs would be more cost-effective on megatons delivered somewhere where it hurts per dollar, even if we assume that the shuttle would get back intact.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:If only... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The boosters (both liquid and solid), the main engines and their controllers, the reaction control systems, the flight control computers, the guidance and navigation system... There's more, but that will do for a partial list. All valuable technologies.

      While the Shuttle as a whole is obsolete, many of its component technologies are still valuable and useful today.

      I suspect many Slashdotters believe that since the Shuttle is a 70's era design it must be the equivalent of a 70's era computer - a dinosaur that's completely obsolete and nothing but a historical curiosity. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the first place, much of the Shuttle's electronics have been routinely upgraded over the years. In the second place, if you don't have the tech then even old but fully functional tech can serve as a valuable springboard. Even if you do have the tech, old tech from someone else can give you insights for your own research and development. Then there are are things like the SSME, items that are even today are on the bleeding edge. Not to mention technologies like the RCC which have immediate military application even though the basic design and technology is forty odd years old.

      This is the same reason the USN still classifies the nuclear reactor technology onboard the USS Nautilus, even though she was built in 1954 and decommissioned in 1980. The theory of nuclear power is very simple, but actually designing, building, and operating one... not so much. Doubly so with a specialized engineering niche like a compact high power nuclear plant. Technology in the real world isn't like technology ladders or levels in games - just because two nations have developed the same broad technology, doesn't mean they have equivalent capabilities. Look at the problems the Russians had in developing safe and reliable submarine nuclear reactors for example. Or, look at how long it's taken the Indians (no technological slouches) to develop and build a homegrown submarine nuclear power plant - even with assistance from the Russians and a domestic nuclear power industry.

    16. Re:If only... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      There's always the so-called "military shuttle" rumors for just such a purpose during the Cold War. How likely there is that one exists or ever existed is debatable, of course, and it's pretty unlikely there's ever been an actual launch of one without somebody noticing. We do know that there's been other military/spy missions going on with the NASA shuttle program though, for satellites and such.

    17. Re:If only... by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned, it's rocket science, and that's worth keeping a lid on. Any kind of rocket science, unless you can buy a kit in the mail or a hobby store, has pretty serious potential applications. China getting their hands on space shuttle plans doesn't mean they'll build their own shuttle, it means they take some tiny piece of it and improve some military application like a missile or airplane.

      In any case, China is trying to get every scrap of technology they can get their hands on, regardless of its potential applications or obsolescence level. Some stuff may be useful immediately, others may be stepping stones to other technologies. Shuttle tech is stuff we improve on to develop new technologies. It's better, from our national security standpoint, for them to be stuck starting from scratch than from getting an idea of where our technology is headed and what we're starting with.

    18. Re:If only... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      technology has advanced to the point where it could be shot out of the sky now.

      I am not so confident of that. True china can hit a satellite going a few thousand mph in a consistent orbit that is not weaving or avoiding, similar for our rockets, they can break up stuff flying horizontally in low earth orbit. I am not so sure if the space shuttle, once in it's higher orbit, could be caught so easy. IE the shuttle has the energy of orbit to make small changes that would take it out of range of any detected launch of anything attempting to catch it in orbit altitude. If it went on a kamikaze straight down mode no fuel, I doubt anything currently known would be both maneuverable enough, and pack enough punch to destroy the shuttle and payload falling straight down from the sky, at say Mach 10+. Hit it, sure, but break everything into small pieces before landfall?

    19. Re:If only... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? they can get it from the Russians. They have had most of the details to the shuttle program for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program

      Honestly, I'm betting they will sell all their info to china for cheap low prices!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1
      I doubt that he knew ICBMs didn't orbit. Besides a Shuttle only has a life in orbit of 2-3 weeks and isn't hardened to nuclear attack. I think the claim that the Shuttle was intended by anyone in government to be a nuclear weapons platform makes as much sense as claiming the Shuttle is based on technology harvested from the Roswell UFO (that incidentally is also a rumor).

      Except that the technology has advanced to the point where it could be shot out of the sky now.

      You ignore here that Russia has long had the technology to shoot things in orbit. They're called nuclear ICBMs. A space nuclear explosion in line of sight of the Shuttle will probably disable the Shuttle and its payload.

    21. Re:If only... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      By definition. A ballistic missile is defined by the fact that it is suborbital.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    22. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing the Space Shuttle with the Orbiter. The Orbiter is the vehicle part only. The Space Shuttle is the external tank, 2 boosters, and the Orbiter.

    23. Re:If only... by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      well the shuttle did launch several classified military payloads over its life and would be very useful to China or Iran hell the engines alone would be useful to Iran oddly NASA has a for sale sign on the engines separate from the orbiter o.o

    24. Re:If only... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the Space Shuttle is one of the very few space vehicles that can bring fair sized satellites down intact.

      Stuff like the Ariane just send things up.

      --
    25. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Surely a satellite is launched on a ballistic path?

      But it doesn't stay on a ballistic path. There is a burn to circularize the orbit.

    26. Re:If only... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Boeing is / was doing a lot of 'technical integration' on the Shuttle. Boring stuff like making sure everybody's using the same measurement units and that connectors from one sub assembly fit to the next sub assembly. That means they have lots and lots of documentation. Useful documentation.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:If only... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because there is value in forcing the Chinese to make all of our mistakes as well. If they have exact specs on what works, they don't need to run through the host of mistakes it took us to get to this technology. Outdated or not, it's still a valuable stepping stone.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    28. Re:If only... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      ICBMs don't orbit.

      Fractional Orbital Bomabardment System (FOBS).

      It was a Soviet ICBM that would go into a circular orbit, then deorbit when in position to actually hit the assigned target. Unlike a "conventional" ICBM, it had no upper limit on range.

      Note further that Sputnik was launched into orbit atop an ICBM.

      And Mercury.

      And Gemini.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    29. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going by literal interpretation, the space shuttle actually includes the boosters. The term 'space shuttle' refers to the entire assembly, if you will; the boosters, the fuel tank, and the orbiter.

    30. Re:If only... by Big+Smirk · · Score: 1

      The moment you turn off the rockets, the path the object takes is 'ballistic' by definition.
      The issue is if the ballistic path intersects with earth (including dense atmosphere) or not. If the answer is no, then its either in orbit or if it has enough energy, on an escape path (govern more by the gravity of other objects).

      A 2nd burn to circularize an orbit is just that. Instead of a elliptical orbit, it becomes more circular.

      --
      TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
    31. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other words, a satellite is not launched on a ballistic path. What happens to the satellite after launch is irrelevant to my point.

    32. Re:If only... by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, sparky, it was the Mercury, Gemini, Sputnik, etc. that orbited, not the Atlas, Redstone, or Bolshaya Svecha. For some of the experiments, they had to take special action to put the booster into orbit. Most were cut loose and fell back to Earth.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    33. Re:If only... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Funny

      They do orbit, it's just that their perigee is beneath the earth's surface.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    34. Re:If only... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Half the reason the shuttle actually got built was because the USAF put a lot of funding into it. There were several intended uses for it, like launching/maintaining spy satellites, supplying manned military space stations, and short-notice recon flights (back when it was assumed the flight rate would be much higher than it turned out to be). There were even a proposed mission where the shuttle would lift off, rendezvous with a target satellite, capture it, and bring it down on one orbit. A launch pad was even constructed at Vandenberg AFB in southern California for the shuttle that would allow it to fly polar orbits; the first such flight was scheduled for 1986, but it (and all shuttle operations from that site) were canceled after the Challenger accident.

      This military involvement was a huge factor in the eventual design of the shuttle. The extra-large payload bay and large delta wings were specified by the USAF in order to loft military payloads and be able to land back at the launch site after one orbit, respectively. It wound up much larger, more expensive, complicated, and fragile because of these requirements. Some have speculated that, had the specifications remained as NASA originally set them, the shuttle would have actually been able to live up to its intended goal of frequent flights and short turnarounds.

      The DoD flew several classified shuttle flights in the late 80s and early 90s. I don't remember if any of them have been leaked or declassified, but there's a good bit of speculation about them if you look around a bit. I think most were suspected to be spy satellite launches.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    35. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other words, they don't orbit. The full trajectory has to clear the Earth's surface in order to be an orbit.

    36. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      To forestall some possible objections, I can see a couple of ways for an object to orbit below the surface:

      1) The object travels in a evacuated tunnel when it is traveling under the surface of Earth and is always in freefall.

      2)The object is so dense that ordinary matter has little effect on it. A black hole could orbit inside the Earth, for example.

      Not that neither exception applies to ordinary matter (like ICBM warheads) in suborbital trajectories that doesn't have a way to stay in freefall when it hits the ground.

    37. Re:If only... by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      In the 'Nuclear War' board game the Space Shuttle can be used in 2 ways: 1) To re-load the Space Platform with missiles 2) To operate as a bomber with a 50 Mt total payload. Do you think the chaps from Flying Buffalo made this stuff up?

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    38. Re:If only... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Alas, neither Sputnik nor Mercury had any way to orbit other than to bring along the upper stage of their booster (which promptly fell away due to drag effects - it's not like they were very high) - no onboarrd thrusters means no independent maneuvering.

      Gemini had limited ability to maneuver without a booster, but had no capability to enter orbit sans booster either. Note that the overwhelming majority of the deltaV available to Gemini (sans Titan) was the solid fuel retro rockets. The remainder was the various attitude control systems (both orbital and reentry).

      And Titan has been used to put other things than Gemini into orbit.

      Useful clue - the difference between an ICBM and an oribt-capable launch vehicle is frequently one of payload. If something is designed to deliver 5000 kg to a spot 10000 km away, it can generally manage to put 1000 kg into orbit.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    39. Re:If only... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Of course that was an option, just like how Mir had a military origin and Salyut had military models.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Origins
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz

    40. Re:If only... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, but it would have made a good FOBS platform.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOBS

      The Soviet FOBS platform, an SS-9, couldn't steer orbits

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36orb

    41. Re:If only... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      What can shoot Shuttle, or ISS, out of the sky?

      Other than an ICBM or theatre nuclear missile.

    42. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Shuttle is the nickname of Space Transportation System, not the Orbiter. Anonymously because of the mod points.

    43. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing purchased North American which was the parent company of Rockwell (that built the orbiter itself) and Rocketdyne (built the engines). As the successor organization, they have the ability to state that they did indeed build the orbiter and engines.

    44. Re:If only... by kurt555gs · · Score: 0, Troll

      Absolutely, The Shuttle is junk and obsolete. It should have never been. I think history will show it was just a Reagan bluff, like "Star Wars" to get the Russians to spend tons of money they didn't have on something that would have been, or in the Shuttle's case, of no practical use.

      They (the Ruskies) actually fell for it, and build the Buran.

      Secret? What could possibly secret on the Space Shuttle? Over reach of laws, yes. Maybe we could classify the plans for the 1954 Kaiser Manhattan and put some Chinese in prison with that.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    45. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The space shuttle was chosen because it was cheap and its objectives achievable.
      It has actually turned to have done neither hence its retirment this year.
      Note: It was originally supposed to launch every 2 weeks or so.
      In 25 year they've done 132 launches (by the time they stop in September).
      You do the math on 3-5 orbiters to see what they actually achieved. :-)

    46. Re:If only... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That.
      I am also a bit surprised that the Shuttle data are so confidential. Isn't that supposed to be a public research effort ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    47. Re:If only... by amh131 · · Score: 1

      From that perspective I also orbit whenever I jump off the ground ... which is technically true I suppose.

    48. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really. A ballistic trajectory is merely an elliptical orbit that intersects the ground.

    49. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      that intersects the ground.

      That means it not an orbit. You can keep saying "no, not really", but the definition of orbit is that it revolves around another body. If it hits the body, then it isn't revolving around the body. These are called "suborbital trajectories" in these cases to distinguish them from orbital trajectories.

    50. Re:If only... by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about cost here.. We're talking about "first strike" capabilities. The strategic deployment of nuclear weapons during the Cold War suffered a fatal flaw: It would be impossible for either side to launch their weapons without a nuclear counter-strike (that whole "Mutually Assured Destruction" thing). A platform for delivering your weapons from orbit could tip this balance, giving one side a clear advantage.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    51. Re:If only... by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      The Chineses are probably trying to steal liquid rocket engine technology. There are plenty of half arsed regimes that would love to master that properly. It's particularly useful for high-performance upper stages.

      The shitboxes that China, Iran, North Korea and friends are flying, are stuff like solids, hypergolics, LOX/kero, that sort of things.

      I would imagine that data on hypersonic gliders might be useful too.

    52. Re:If only... by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      ... sorry CRYOGENIC liquid rocket engine technology. The SSMEs are state-of-the-art, and are one of the most advanced and high-performance rocket engines ever built.

    53. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, not really?

    54. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      /emote 's head asplodes.

    55. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you still need to verify the Russian info is legit.

    56. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the orbital equations are the same for a ballistic missile and a shuttle launch, I'd say the ballistic missile is orbital. In fact, the missile enters into a standard elliptical orbit after the initial boost phase, however, part of the orbit just happens to intersect the Earth.

    57. Re:If only... by orasio · · Score: 1

      If they did orbit, they would be called ICOM, right? It's great that you know how to expand an acronym, congratulations.

      My point was a lot less specific.
      I am not a fan of warfare strategy, so I don't actually care whether its best military application is launching nukes from orbit, or just disabling enemy satellites, but it does have lots of military applications that a plain rocket doesn't have, and it is probably a bad thing for a country to give that info to another country.

    58. Re:If only... by khallow · · Score: 1

      They'd probably just drop the "InterContinental" part since that really is extraneous now. Maybe Orbital Ballistic Missiles (OBM) assuming it's still functionally a missile.

      The problem with using the Shuttle as a military weapon is that it is fragile, unreliable, and simply can't stay in space for very long. It'd be something like using a yacht in a naval engagement. The ship might have great performance and cost a lot. But it's not going to take a lot of shots before it's sunk or blown up. That's why I don't take the rumor seriously. There's also the matter that it would grossly violate international treaties against putting nuclear weapons in space and you don't know where those nuclear weapons would end up. They might end up in Africa 30 minutes after launch. They might end up scattered over Texas a couple weeks later. No military planner would even bother putting nuclear weapons on a Shuttle except as some sort of goofy "what if" scenario, like in the movies Armageddon or Deep Impact. Those movies are probably the most serious such attempts.

    59. Re:If only... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Remember Columbia? You don't need "punch" to destroy the shuttle. Hit it with ANYTHING whatsoever, and it handles "breaking everything into small pieces before landfall" all by itself.

    60. Re:If only... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      I was clear about a shuttle already in orbit coming down without much fuel. Sure, shuttle loaded with that huge fuel tank for takeoff could probably be taken out with a high powered rifle. Sounds like a good retirement plan for the shuttles? load them all full of nukes launch them to as high of altitude as we can get them at, and leave them there until a bush gets back into office (doh). I bet no pilot is really needed on-board for this mission.

    61. Re:If only... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      What I don't get: why did the PRC get downgraded as a intelligence target? As long as they treat the US as a prime target, the US should return the favor. Actually upgrading their status again now would be a reasonable diplomatic response. Especially after all the shit they've been giving the US for selling a few weapons to Taiwan, just so Taiwan has a minute chance to defend themselves.

    62. Re:If only... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      How much money does the US owe China?

      2 Trillion? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100011049/america-owes-china-two-trillion-dollars-but-what-does-that-mean/

      How much money did it cost NASA to develop the space shuttle?

      Maybe just send them a invoice marked "PAID"? :)

    63. Re:If only... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The solid rocket boosters are made by ATK Thiokol rather than Boeing. Boeing however used to own Rocketdyne at a point, which designed the SSME. The probably also have the info on the orbiter.

      The most useful info about the orbiter is probably the shape, reentry thermal characteristics, and thermal shielding.

  2. I've been saying it for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can't trust the Chinese.

    1. Re:I've been saying it for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. But you're Chinese, so we didn't trust you when you said that.

    2. Re:I've been saying it for years... by Tim+C · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How on earth did this get modded Informative?!

    3. Re:I've been saying it for years... by Ja'Achan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I, for one, didn't know the GP was Chines :+

    4. Re:I've been saying it for years... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      This is going to be the new racism.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  3. 15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Send him to Gitmo, then death penalty. No New York trials. He's a spy, stealing information that can be used against us. When are we going to acknowledge that we are at (cyber) war with China, have been for years, and start acting accordingly?

    1. Re:15 years? by Spazztastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Send him to Gitmo, then death penalty. No New York trials. He's a spy, stealing information that can be used against us. When are we going to acknowledge that we are at (cyber) war with China, have been for years, and start acting accordingly?

      Sad thing is that you're modded funny, when you should be insightful. If China caught an American spy, they would execute him after quick trial.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    2. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Didn't you know? We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

    3. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If China caught an American spy, they would execute him after quick trial."

      So PRC should be emulated?

    4. Re:15 years? by vxice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why we are supposed to be better. Anyone who argues that spies/terrorists/whatever crime you really don't like/think is horribly immoral should receive any less legal protection than the next guy is actively working to undermine our liberties and founding values no better than the terrorists/ whatever they claim to be fighting.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    5. Re:15 years? by sadness203 · · Score: 1

      Oh please... he was doing the US a service... When the Chinese will mass product cheap part for the shuttle, it'll be easy to launch massive payload each week in the sky. Ok ... Half of the launches will finish in a huge fireball because of the cheap part... But still. This guy should be decorated!

    6. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they even bothered with a trial... A US spy, if that clearcut, would just disappear, so no press coverage.

      Instead, we imprison with cable TV and free health care. I hear our prisons are lavish compared to the standard of a normal Chinese citizen. Might not be up to the $3M lifestyle "on the outside", but still better than his ancestors.

    7. Re:15 years? by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isnt treason supposed to come with the death penalty?

    8. Re:15 years? by Nathrael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do we imprison them instead of killing them right away? Spy exchange. You may not hear it on TV, but it's pretty likely that they capture one of ours every now and then just as well, and what'd be a better resource to trade in for our spies than their spies?

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    9. Re:15 years? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not before a trial. But come to think of it, the way some legislators (and even judges) trash the constitution, maybe they should be tried for treason as well?

    10. Re:15 years? by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I tend to be anti-death penalty for various reasons (what ever happened to redemption?) however, punishment? Sure.

      There is an element of hypercriticality to this...when the US runs their own spys (something which I, as a citizen, do not support, and firmly believe the CIA should have been disbanded forever after the MKULTRA affair)

      In short.... Punish the spys.... ALL OF THEM. Every single one of them, no matter who they work for, is a criminal in some way.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      He really should have gotten the death penalty. I'm not a right wing defense nut, but treason, particularly millitary treason (take a look at the early history of the space program(s) in the USA on wikipedia) needs to be dealt with in a swift manner. 15 years is not going to cut it, and eventually he's going to make it back to China and live a very comfortable life. 15 years (how many of that will be probation???) is a small price to pay to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of your life, especially coming from China.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't.... breathe.... need... sentence... to... end....

    13. Re:15 years? by Kartoffel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would only be treason if the spy had been a US citizen. You can't commit treason against a foreign country.

      TFA doesn't specify the guy's current citizenship status, only that he was says the guy was originally born in China. He's also 74 years old and in poor health. A 15 year sentence is pretty close to a death sentence at that rate.

    14. Re:15 years? by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should.

    15. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 1

      So you think that the act itself doesn't deserve the punishment, that it is the severity of the damage done?

      By that thinking, you support driving drunk unless (until) you actually kill somebody?

      Fry the bastard.

    16. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 2, Informative

      He had a trial and was found guilty. Then sentenced to 15 years... instead of the death penalty.

    17. Re:15 years? by vxice · · Score: 1

      That is basically my point. Don't keep it to legislators however, many people have been guilty. In many cases it might be a bit harsh, and remember that this country was founded by traitors to the crown. However from the constitution "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    18. Re:15 years? by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if we all close our eyes and click our heels, we'll be back in Kansas.

    19. Re:15 years? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Not true -- I have some old newspapers talking about how Eastasia is our ally.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    20. Re:15 years? by gtall · · Score: 1

      He's 74 years old. Maybe he'll have a very short life back in China.

    21. Re:15 years? by Publikwerks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is a naturalized US citizen according to bloomberg

    22. Re:15 years? by sadness203 · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have put some sarcasm tag somewhere.

    23. Re:15 years? by acohen1 · · Score: 1

      indeed

    24. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are if that happened you'd end up trading a real spy for a double agent. The enemy gets intel, you get fed falsies.

      Paranoia - learn it :)

    25. Re:15 years? by mforbes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the parts will be cheap, but the lead paint will make the Chinese version too heavy to fly!

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    26. Re:15 years? by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Because after years in a Chinese prison, I doubt if any of our spies could even tie their shoes or make coherent thoughts anymore.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    27. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it racist to think you're better than someone else, especially in these kind of cross-race ideological disputes?

      According to summary he was charged for INTENT, meaning he failed miserably in emailing that top secret info to the Chinese KGB/FBI equivalent. Hrrm.

      Witch! A witch!
      -And what do we do with witches?
      Burn them! We burn them all!

    28. Re:15 years? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Never kill a spy. If you kill a spy you can't turn him or trade him for one of your own.

    29. Re:15 years? by mike2R · · Score: 1

      I think you need some re-education :)

      O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

      'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

      'Four.'

      'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

      'Four.'

      The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

      'How many fingers, Winston?'

      'Four.'

      The needle went up to sixty.

      'How many fingers, Winston?'

      'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

      The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

      'How many fingers, Winston?'

      'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

      'How many fingers, Winston?'

      'Five! Five! Five!'

      'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    30. Re:15 years? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's kill him! That kind of guy could get the PRC in space, where they could do useful things that advance humanity!

    31. Re:15 years? by jitterman · · Score: 1

      No, you're not *required* to commit treason once you're given the death penalty.

      "Would you like treason with that?"

      "No thanks, death'll be enough for today."

      :)

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    32. Re:15 years? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      The constitutional definition of treason is as follows:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

      It's rather difficult to get a conviction for treason, and there's a damn good reason - the Founders wanted the people to be able to criticize their government freely. That's why it's "levying war" or "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". That being said, the maximum penalty for treason is the death penalty. Judges sentencing have leeway in what they decide, and unless someone died, critical state secrets were passed along, or troop movements were disclosed, it's unlikely that any judge would sentence someone convicted of treason to death.

    33. Re:15 years? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the treason clause in the Constitution says nothing at all about needing to be a US citizen. However, the Constitution does say that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It goes to say that a conviction of treason can only occur based on the testimony of two witnesses to an "overt act" or a confession in open court. Since we are not in a state of war with China, it would be very hard to classify China as an "Enemy" for this purpose. And there's no way you'd have the two witnesses in this case (incidentally, the two witness requirement is one of the very few examples of Biblical influence on the Constitution which otherwise shows largely more Roman, Greek and later ideas as the primary influence). We have separate laws against spying for a reason. So we don't need to try to get people for treason which is (correctly) next to impossible to do.

    34. Re:15 years? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      the side discussion was about the likely actions of the PRC if the situation were reversed

      --
      FGD 135
    35. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      It still sets a precedent. What about the 24 year old foreign exchange student-come-NASA intern? If treason gets downgraded from "death" to "uh, 15 years I guess", a (good) judge is going to have to sentence future treasonists according to precedent. I don't know if you've checked lately, but retiring at 40 in rural China on 3 million dollars allows you, your children, and your children's children to live very comfortably. That's an appealing prospect for some.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    36. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's seventy-four. Yeah, he's sure got a long and luxurious life ahead of him.

    37. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, taking notice of reality is a thoughtcrime, didn't you know?

    38. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      People's Republic of China is already in space. This technology just helps improve their ICBM tech. Besides, if it was so friendly, wouldn't China have just bought the tech from us in the first place? They already paid someone $3 million USD to get it for them.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    39. Re:15 years? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      From wikipedia:

      Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; having sexual intercourse with the sovereign's consort, with his eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

      Very broad, and historically a means of keeping down democrats. In the United States, treason was defined narrowly, so as to forestall abuses. The crimes of sedition and espionage have been used to fill the void, though if Michelle Obama wanted some action on the side, that would be her business, not the state's.

    40. Re:15 years? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      40 year old tech for computer with 4Kbyte Memory (processors only available on EBay even for NASA) that's not spying, that's Fanboy Archeology.

    41. Re:15 years? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      He's not a spy though, I think the word is asset. An actual spy cannot get that info, but the spy can recruit an asset who can. This guy doesn't have any use, he was paid to provide info.

    42. Re:15 years? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      He's not a spy though, I think the word is asset. An actual spy cannot get that info, but the spy can recruit an asset who can. This guy doesn't have any use, he was paid to provide info he provided

    43. Re:15 years? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      No you laid it on think enough

    44. Re:15 years? by bostei2008 · · Score: 1

      You seriously would execute - kill - a 74 year old man?

    45. Re:15 years? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Send him to Gitmo, then death penalty. No New York trials. He's a spy, stealing information that can be used against us.

      If you allowed people to be executed without trial when accused of being spies, I'm sure you'd be amazed at how many spies suddenly turn up. And by an even more amazing coincidence, all of them would be people someone in power didn't like. A bit like every other time when someone's word has been enough to send people to gallows.

      Learn to use your brains even when offended, please.

      When are we going to acknowledge that we are at (cyber) war with China, have been for years, and start acting accordingly?

      Does it make sense to execute spies? It's never stopped people from spying, so it's not an effective deterrent, and it's not like they deserve it any more or less than any other enemy troops do. Keep them imprisoned and exchange for your own spies.

      Besides, I'm not sure that US can really afford any new wars, especially with China. They manufacture all your stuff nowadays, you know.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:15 years? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Give the devil his due

    47. Re:15 years? by TheCarl · · Score: 1

      Umm are we forgetting the Hainan Island incident of 2001? Where are spies were caught and released even after a Chinese pilot was killed in the accident?

    48. Re:15 years? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Which means that having one of theirs in the slammer here *might* give us the possibility of doing a trade to get one of our own guys back home.

      Not particularly likely, maybe, but probably worth keeping this guy alive.

    49. Re:15 years? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I would *hope* that we weren't letting foreign nationals have access to all our secrets. Now, giving clearance levels to naturalized citizens is another debate. Hopefully background checks get a little better after something like this, anyway.

    50. Re:15 years? by pdxp · · Score: 1

      No, but they'll be able to dance to Thriller in a very synchronized and entertaining fashion.

    51. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 1

      I did use my brains. Read the original article.

      There was a trial. He was convicted of spying and sentenced to 15 years.

      "New war" with China? Pull your head out of the sand... we've been at war for quite awhile.

    52. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Are you really arguing about the death penalty in a treason case? I'd be curious to read arguments against the death penalty for treason. One person upthread mentioned you can trade a spy for a spy.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    53. Re:15 years? by mrxak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeeeeaaaahhhh.....

      The idea that they're all criminals is kind of silly. Most spies operating abroad actually work with diplomatic immunity, gathering relatively public information and doing analysis. There are spies, working with that immunity, who go about trying to recruit assets like Mr. Chung... somebody disaffected, or somebody who has a reason to feel a stronger tie towards another country, or merely somebody who can be bought. They're the criminals, but they're a fairly small portion of the intelligence community as a whole. They're the ones who take the biggest risks, and the ones who get the biggest rewards for their work, if they do it well.

      Unfortunately, we live in a world that's not all that friendly. Without spies, there'd be a lot more chaos and death in the world. Spies are the ones that allow leaders to go into a meeting with another leader and tell them "we know you're doing x, so cut it out" and lets military powers stay balanced enough that nobody gains a massive advantage and goes to war. Basically, spies allow for diplomacy to flourish, and they prevent conflicts. China is fully justified in wanting to spy on us and build up technologically and militarily in order to ensure their interests are satisfied. We're equally as justified in wanting to stop them from doing that so our own interests are satisfied. As a patriot, I want my own nation to have the best spies and maintain or achieve superiority in all things. As a rational human being, I'm not going to begrudge any other nation the same desire.

      I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds, but treason/spying cases are pretty much the only time when I hesitate to rule it out entirely. The cost of spying against my nation should be prohibitive, and I wouldn't be terribly upset if other nations followed suit. That's the risk assets take.

    54. Re:15 years? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Because after years in a Chinese prison, I doubt if any of our spies could even tie their shoes or make coherent thoughts anymore.

      I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that they'll be left to rot once they've outlived their usefulness.

      This is the cancer that's killing our society.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:15 years? by dosilegecko · · Score: 1

      My friend, the spy trading business is a dirty, dangerous, and convoluted wash that no one wants to acknowledge.

    56. Re:15 years? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      And they are unlikely to be found guilty.

      Since:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

      See: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

      I'm not even sure if this spy would be guilty of treason. He wasn't conducting a war against the USA. As for "adhering to their enemies" - when was the last time your enemy lent you two trillion US Dollars which you could pay back by printing more funny money (aka US Dollars). And you used some of that money to buy stuff from them (yes a lot of their stuff was crap, but it's not like you gave them real gold for it :) ).

      --
    57. Re:15 years? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "If China caught an American spy, they would execute him after quick trial."

      So PRC should be emulated?

      No, but perhaps someone should take some time to dust off the policies on Treason, especially during times of war. One could make the argument about our war status by taking a look at the ongoing Cyberwar.

    58. Re:15 years? by TheLink · · Score: 0, Troll

      The PRC don't execute all American spies they catch.

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

      They have executed _Chinese_ spies who spy for other countries.

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wo_Weihan

      So if you're going to spy on China for the USA make sure you're a US citizen first and probably safer if you weren't born in China.

      --
    59. Re:15 years? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Instead, we imprison with cable TV and free health care.

      And don't forget all the free sex...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    60. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were the space shuttles not going up for auction anyway? Why don't the chinese just buy one and save themselves the trouble?

      Or is it like decomissioned military ships where all the "cool stuff" is offloaded before hand and what you actually get if you win is an aluminum shell with no flashing lights, displays or working electronics of any kind? Would certainly explain the lack of interest...

      Don't loose hope as the "cool stuff" has a way of showing up on ebay eventually anyway :-)

    61. Re:15 years? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You really didn't. There's a very good reason why we generally don't execute spies anymore; keeping them instead for some time and sometimes exchanging for our own spies.

      Makes the world more civilised. Keeps other countries from killing your countrymen on the pretence that they were spies.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    62. Re:15 years? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Christ, not Kansas. Can't we go somewhere interesting?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    63. Re:15 years? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I believe in the USA treason has a very specific definition like aiding an enemy your country is at war with, hardly would apply to China. Also, I don't see what the fuss is about even allies like Israel and Britain spy on the US, I am willing to bet the reverse is also true.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    64. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 0

      I really did.

      You said "If you allowed people to be executed without trial..."

      I just pointed out that there was a trial.

      The issue of execution or life sentences is a different one.

    65. Re:15 years? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The death penalty (aka: murder by the state) is wrong no matter what. Once a person is rendered harmless, you have no right to kill him. And in case you haven't noticed, he wasn't convicted of treason.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    66. Re:15 years? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Well, then your falling is looking at it as a legal case and not a geopolitical one.

      Only one country needs to start executing spies or "spies", other will follow. "Evidence" is easy to come by.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    67. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arguing death penalty (which I'm generally against, btw) is like arguing abortion on the internet. It's a moral issue, and it's not worth arguing unless you're going to post some well reasoned articles (not sound bytes) that are well documented and researched. I'm not kidding when I say I'd be very interested to see a well written argument against the death penalty for treason. I still hold that his actions fit the generally accepted definition of treason.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    68. Re:15 years? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      the side discussion was about the likely actions of the PRC if the situation were reversed

      In Communist China, spy sentences YOU!

    69. Re:15 years? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we should be like China? Nice. Get the fuck out of my country.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    70. Re:15 years? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe we aren't talking about the same people...

      I seem to remember them working illegal deals for arms through third parties, helping to ship cocaine into the US, doing mind control experiments on people in New York City (Operation Midnight Climax), Kidnapping people (and being sloppy about it), Torture. Let's not forget that they attempted to assassinate one world leader enough times to get him into the guiness book of world records (add multiple counts of attempted murder).

      Exactly the sort of sociopaths I want on the payroll that I pay my taxes into.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    71. Re:15 years? by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      The PRC don't execute all American spies they catch...See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
       
      Whoa there; in international treaties "spies" are people pretending to be innocent while stealing secrets at night. The uniformed military personnel who crash landed on Hainan Island were certainly conducting military surveillance but there wasn't anything clandestine about what they were doing. They weren't "spies" except in sensationalist media reports. Heck, the day after they were released the Navy started re-flying that exact same route with jets the Chinese couldn't intercept.

    72. Re:15 years? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I would *hope* that we weren't letting foreign nationals have access to all our secrets. Now, giving clearance levels to naturalized citizens is another debate. Hopefully background checks get a little better after something like this, anyway.

      The won't get better, just slower. Now, for those who have clearances and contact with Chinese foreign nationals, you can expect your clearance to take double the amount of time it would normally take. Yay.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    73. Re:15 years? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I believe you'll find that most people convicted of spying in this country don't go to a "standard" prison but end up in places more like Levenworth. At least one has even been sentenced to solitary confinement for life. I'm looking for links to substantiate this, but can't find them at the moment...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    74. Re:15 years? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Accidently selected 'Overrated' moderation option, posting to remove my mistake. I wish Slashdot would let me change moderation selections. )o:

      --
      Love sees no species.
    75. Re:15 years? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I still hold that his actions fit the generally accepted definition of treason.

      Luckily, the law isn't applied in that fashion. The only acceptable definition is that which is codified into law. And the law of the land is pretty specific what constitutes treason. The death penalty is a matter of convenience. It sure isn't working as a deterrent. There's no "morality" backing it up. And a civilized society doesn't kill people absent of immediate danger. Only savages do that.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    76. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you explicitly said there shouldn't be trials. That's what ultranova called you out on, and you know it.

    77. Re:15 years? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3.
      Treason
      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
      The Congress shall have the power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person Attained.

      He gave aid to the enemy. Did they have two witnesses to the same overt act? Has he confessed? If no to both, no treason. Also, the death penalty must be requested by Congress. They can chose to make it less, say, 15 years in prison.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    78. Re:15 years? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Treason has never been "death only". It has always been up to Congress to declare the punishment for Treason. Read Article III, Section 3 of the constitution sometime.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    79. Re:15 years? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Send him to Gitmo, then death penalty. No New York trials. He's a spy

      But this is not a declared war. Soviet spies were not executed during the Cold War (except sometimes by the ordinary cons), they were given sentences of several decades, and sometimes traded for our agents that the Other Side had captured.

      Anyway, if he is a spy, we should have turned him and fed disinformation to the Chinese, or chicken feed to set them up for a big whopper. The only reason to publicly arrest and imprison him is to prove the bona fides of some disinformation that he sent.

      Oh, wait. Never mind. Ignore what I just said. We would never use a spy to send back the information that we wanted an adversary to believe. Everything that he stole and sent along is of the highest importance, and we will be reduced to slaves if the Chinese ever use it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    80. Re:15 years? by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      ...I thought spies were supposed to understand that from the get-go?

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    81. Re:15 years? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Good call; thanks for pointing this out.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    82. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a treason case. We aren't at war with China. Read the fucking constitution.

    83. Re:15 years? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      I still hold that his actions fit the generally accepted definition of treason.

      That might mean something if your opinion carried any legal weight. He was neither charged with, nor convicted for, treason. The charge was "espionage", which is quite different.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    84. Re:15 years? by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Really? There is a jet version of the EP-3? Owned by the Navy? That can outrun jet interceptors?

      Why don't those VQ people simply drive this magic carpet every day rather than risk yet another confrontation?

    85. Re:15 years? by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      However the Constitution doesn't bar congress from creating different crimes which have the death penalty. I've always wondered why it doesn't define murder and treason then limit the death penalty to those.

    86. Re:15 years? by Mephistro · · Score: 1
      Can you resurrect a wrongly executed person? Is you judiciary system 100% error free? The day you can answer 'yes' to at least one of these two questions, you can support death penalty. Till then, death penalty is more akin to 'human sacrifice' than to 'justice'.

      Oh, and spending 15 years of your life in a high security prison for 3 million dollars doesn't look like such a good idea.

    87. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you are executed by China for spying has little to do on whether you are pretending to be innocent or not.

      If you are a citizen of China, you most likely get executed. If you are a natural born citizen of the USA, China is unlikely to execute you for spying - even if you were pretending to be a tourist. They'll arrest you and eventually boot you out of the country. Or if necessary find some other offense they can (in politically viable terms) execute you for (e.g. drug dealing etc). If you are an ex-citizen of China, "your mileage may vary".

    88. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though if Michelle Obama wanted some action on the side, that would be her business, not the state's.

      Yeah, but you don't use marriage between state leaders and the families of other state leaders to solidify alliances. If Obama was shacked up with some European Princess to signify the strong alliance the two countries have, you can be damn well sure that it would be the states business if she fancied a bit of rough on the side.

      Don't mistake the youth of your country and its laws as an indication of more rational/justifiable behaviour.

    89. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you're only supposed to get the option of death penalty if information you leaked in treasonous activity leads (maybe directly) to a US agent's death.

      I think 5 years is the minimum sentence for treason though, with 10-15 being typical.

    90. Re:15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how they dare to get information of a spaceship you were anyway going to scrap away in a corner? The fucking communist pig probably was thinking about making manned space travel possible, too!!

      That's why we are fucking stuck at this rock, because of attitudes like that one. And because of bankers. And paranoia. But mainly it's a matter of attitude.

    91. Re:15 years? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Your information, it would seem, is quite a bit out of date.

      The CIA is no longer allowed to operate within the borders of the United States, so I think you'd have a hard time making an argument against them for MKULTRA. MKULTRA was decades ago, I doubt many people who were involved with it are still on the payroll.

      As for killing foreign enemies of the nation, that doesn't sound so bad to me, although there are laws in place to prevent them from conducting assassinations against world leaders.

      Basically, you need to stop reading spy novels written 50 years ago.

    92. Re:15 years? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yet, they still operate in secret, so there is no way for me to verify that they don't do all those things still. I see no reason to believe that they have changed.

      Also, some of it was far more recent. The Kidnapping in Italy (I forget who) was in the past few years. A search of the vacated room where one of the kidnappers stayed was found to have a note pad with a phone number in langley VA on it. Further evidence continued to point to the CIA, including one of the names on a phone registration (oops)

      MKULTRA was the 60s. Iran-Contra/cocaine smuggling was the 80s. Kidnapping/Torture, past 5 years....

      As for extra-judicial killing of foreign nationals or conducing secret flights to move them to countries where they can be tortured... well... that seems like evidence to me that they haven't changed. Sounds like a continued pattern of criminal behavior to me.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    93. Re:15 years? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      He's not a spy until he has been convicted. There is a reason why we follow proper procedures in any other kind of trial: it's the only system that works and protects our freedom. US courts work, the US constitution works. Military dictatorships with monkey justice don't work.

    94. Re:15 years? by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 1

      He was convicted as a spy... and sentenced to 15 years...

    95. Re:15 years? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      If your at "war" and they are spying on your, why are they such a big trading partner? Why continue trade relations? I think you need to solve that elephant before moving on to mice.

  4. Ha, he should get a medal by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Letting China waste billions of dollars building one of those money sinks, plus $700 million per launch, would probably be the worst thing we could do to them.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think we learned that trick from the Russians

    2. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by TheDarkMinstrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that we've saved them billions by letting them learn from OUR mistakes...

    3. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really, the only reason the US wasted billions of dollars is because of bureaucracy (later years) and initial research (earlier years). If the PRC doesn't have to do the research, that takes a big chunk away and then if the bureaucracy is replaced with a set of people that hardly get paid for the work, you save another few billions.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Sollord · · Score: 1

      yeah but it's china they will run it like we originally designed it with out the 6month maintenance delay before the same shuttle can launch again.

    5. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by vxice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When will people realize that China is keeping its currency value low and attracting manufacturing jobs to its land to slowly accumulate wealth and technology and once it is in strong enough position will call back on its debt and consume what it produces itself to raise its own peoples standard of living and eventually push us to the sideline. China is spending money on its future, we are spending money from the future. Globalization only benefits all when countries work as equals, protectionism is not the way to go but we need to ensure that American companies and Chinese companies are working on even footing. Just seriously propose that we stop importing unless fair labor standards are enforced and if not then cut off access to our markets but we would rather have a dozen tube socks for a dollar.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    6. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the SSME are still some of the most advanced liquid fueled engines flying today. The ET uses ALLI alloy and also very advanced and the SRB are the most powerful solid fuel boosters ever flown.
      Throw in the fact that the Shuttle probably has the most hypersonic flight time of any vehicle and you have a really treasure trove of useful information.
      Yes the Shuttle was too expensive per flight but really is a technological marvel an one that has produced a lot very useful knowledge.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Isn't America in debt to China for billions or trillions of dollars? I say not repaying the loan to China would be the worst thing we could do to them.

    8. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by LarrySDonald · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile elsewhere... Scientists in the Soviet and China replicate the exact same research for no other reason then that it's not available when they could instead be working on something more useful, like improving on it. Doh. People! Try to cooperate. Getting into space is hard enough as it is, try to forge some info-trade agreements. Perhaps GPL the bitch as a sign of good will - it's not like the US is using it for anything much now. Also, China does not give a good god damn if they lock up their spies. They're golden on people, maggoty with 'em, if you want one they'll give you a spare one just in case.

    9. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by maxume · · Score: 1

      The trick is doing that without spooking the other $11 trillion worth of debt holders into thinking you are going to screw them over too (once they believe you will do it, they will act as if you have already done it).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by afidel · · Score: 1

      That was my thought too, the best thing we could do to slow down China's space program and sap some money out of their economy would be to let them steal the full plans for the Shuttle.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by LarrySDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is a bad thing how? We've saved billions by having them make our.. nearly everything. It's about time to start working on getting on the same page with China. We'll have to start sliding a little more toward cooperation, they'll have to start sliding a little more toward competition. With any luck, we can sort of meet in the middle.

    12. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by LarrySDonald · · Score: 1

      Or, get this, perhaps you could negotiate some of that dept away by trading for investments you're not going to use anymore anyhow. Perhaps with some agreements made to continue fixing this clusterfuck until we can sort of just get things done rather then rather then both continue to build bigger sticks.

    13. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Throw in the fact that the Shuttle probably has the most hypersonic flight time of any vehicle and you have a really treasure trove of useful information.

      By the time of STS-5, the Shuttle had accumulated more hypersonic flight than all other US programs to date combined. Even with the test programs run since then, the Shuttle still represent better than 99% of our hypersonic flight experience according to an aerodynamicist I know.

    14. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Insightful yes, it is a little muddier than this. Almost half of the debt is owed to other government accounts. They've been consistently borrowing from Social Security to pad their budgets. So, we have to worry about spooking the holders of the other ~$7 trillion. A big number, definitely, but everyone should be aware of the shell game going on in Washington. Go read this article on the Clinton surplus: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    15. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 1

      They are never getting that money back. Let's be serious.

    16. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they learned it from us...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_program

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well I said probably just in case there is some black project that I don't know about or if Russia has something going on we don't know about.
      I guess I could have said, "as far as I know" but my guess is that your friend is correct.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, right. Let me guess, you are an American, living in your mothers basement, with a pinhole view of the world, and zero understanding of trade balances, foreign debt holders, or fiat currencies?

      Here is what would happen.

      You: Fuck you chinks, we ain't payin our bill... HAHAHAHAHAHAH try that one on for size you fishhead eating slant eyed sons a bitches!!!!
      China: Really?
      You: USA USA USA USA USA USA
      China: Hello world, fire sale on US T-Bills. All US debt must go, we don't want it anymore.
      You: Screw this, I am going to WalMart to shop.... Hey, why are those socks 95 dollars for a three pack, last week they were 2 dollars for 10 pairs?? WTF
      China: Hey round eye, how do you like your greenback peso now, biaaaatchh!!!!
      You: Why did it cost 115 Euros to fill my gas tank this morning, WTF is a Euro, and why do they cost 130 USD a piece?
      China: Hey Americunt, you feel like payin your bills yet, or are you going to let your dollar become the Deutchmark of the 1920's, Oh, look at that, it is now 165 USD for a Euro, and Gas cost 2 Euros a gallon. Fillin that SUV is gonna HURT.
      You: Wow, mom lost the house, internet costs 1500 USPesos a month, and there is nothing to buy in any stores, I guess I can join the army and be cannon fodder.
      USARMY/NAVY/AF/MARINES: Sorry biatch, we ain't hirin since China cut up our credit card. We can't pay for guns, bombs, or gas, and socks now cost 2500 USPesos a pair! We have declared world peace, cuz we can't afford to fight.
      You: Wow, that sure sucked, starving to death with no job, no money, no credit, and no friends.
      World: Have no fear, the IMF and World Bank will be happy to completely enslave your country, and saddle you with debt that can never be paid back, while stealing anything of commercial value left in your country. Welcome to the third world!

    19. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by mrxak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not going to build their own space shuttle if they get their hands on our space shuttle plans. They'll learn from our designs and build something else like a missile, or use the material science for some new fighter jet. It's better they start from scratch than get a leg-up from our designs. The shuttle may be obsolete, but what do you think we use to learn from and improve on?

    20. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy should be hanged by the neck until dead. He, like the politicians, are traitors and should not be given any mercy. Leave mercy to God.

    21. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When will people realize that China ... once it is in strong enough position will call back on its debt

      When will people realize that US foreign debt to China isn't made up of handshakes and winks? It's in bonds with pre-determined maturation dates. There is no "oh, we've changed our minds, pay everything right now" clause.

    22. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I say not repaying the loan to China would be the worst thing we could do to them.

      No, that would be the best thing we could do to them. They get interest every year, after all.
      Plus the ability to screw with us by either dumping the T-bills or threatening same gives them clout that they wouldn't otherwise have.

      The worst thing we could do to them is rearrange our budget so we have a surplus every year, and pay off our loans from China and everyone else.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    23. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Good, maybe they can improve on it. Nationalism has already kept our countries from cooperating on space ventures for far too long.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    24. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have it backwards. Seriously.

      China gets USD for trinkets and stuff it sells to US. These USD, in the end, can only be used to buy stuff in the US. So, China buys T-Bills are these only thing they could buy. China cannot really buy stuff with these USD. If they start to do so, it would kill treasuries resulting in high interest rates.

      Chinese currency is tied to USD. China cannot just use their USD holdings (except buying T-bills) without killing their own currency and their own economy.

      US doesn't borrow money from China. China bought US debt as that is the only thing they can do without shooting themselves in the foot. US doesn't go to China and say "buy our debt". China comes to US and say "can we buy your debt". See the difference?

    25. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but on the upside, my student loan and all my credit card debt is in U.S. dollars. When the dollar tanks, I'll be able to pay it all off by selling a few DVD's. USA! USA! USA!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    26. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      What good is a new missile going to do them when they already have enough nukes to wipe any other country in the world off the map? What, are they going to build one that will cause a nuclear armageddon a few minutes quicker?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      China's space program *is* the best way to sap money out of their economy. By the time they realize it's a merciless money sink with little practical return, they will have wasted billions. But they'll have a Chinese flag on the moon, who-hoo!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Not really, the only reason the US wasted billions of dollars is because of bureaucracy (later years) and initial research (earlier years).

      The Shuttle's fundamental design is so inherently flawed and unsafe that a massive bureaucracy, meticulous procedures and hand rebuilding are needed to keep the shuttle from being destroyed on each launch. The Chinese will have no magic cure for that fact.

      In fact, if I were in charge I'd donate all the existing NASA Shuttle hardware to the Chinese so that they too can waste 30 years on a technological dead end. (This would also help to keep NASA from being tempted to recycle old shuttle parts into yet another launch system boondoggle.)

    29. Re:Ha, he should get a medal by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Borrowing from social security... just seems wrong. Kind of like a parent borrowing from their kid's piggy bank without the kid having a say in it.

  5. He got away with it. by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's 74 years old, he'll never see the end of this sentence. He lived what appears to be a good life living in the country he was betraying (about 3M worth of good life from TFA). His nursing home arrangements are less than desirable but he'll still have better care than many seniors in this country.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    1. Re:He got away with it. by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What should have done in addition to his prison sentence is to strip his entire family assets; to send a clear message of don't ever f*ing bite the hands that feeds you.

    2. Re:He got away with it. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We should punish the child for the sins of the father?

      People like you should be denied the right to vote.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:He got away with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      yeah, because punishing people who had fuck-all to do with the crime is what America is all about!

    4. Re:He got away with it. by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never fully understood why we don't impose financial death penalties in cases like these. If all of his existing assets would not exist save for the quasi-treasonous offense (I recognize that it doesn't meet the technical definition for treason unless we've declared war on China while I wasn't looking), then take all of his assets. Every penny, every investment, every stick of lumber, every square centimeter of land. If you allow him or his family to profit from this in any way, then you've provided a reason for potential spies to begin spying in the future.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    5. Re:He got away with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you set that precedent, the same law could potentially be turned against rich Americans that commit crimes. Lawyers are good at pointing at "cases like these" to seek damages in unrelated cases. That is why we don't impose financial death penalties: Protect the rich.

    6. Re:He got away with it. by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      Yes if the father teaches his kids to be thieving POS who have no morals or any since of loyalty.

      The man betrayed a country that provided him the best opportunity he could ever have and protected his human rights; but instead he chooses to throw it all away for greed.

    7. Re:He got away with it. by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded flame bait? The idea of punishing others for ones crimes has long been held immoral in most cultures and societies.

    8. Re:He got away with it. by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      Yes if the father teaches his kids to be thieving POS who have no morals or any since of loyalty.

      Yes, because kids always listen to their parents...

    9. Re:He got away with it. by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      And kill his dog! Death death death death death death !!!!!!!!!!

    10. Re:He got away with it. by vlm · · Score: 1

      I've never fully understood why we don't impose financial death penalties in cases like these.

      Probably because you don't know anything about civil forfeiture aka asset forfeiture. We already do that. One difference is that you're assuming he's been found guilty, whereas in civil forfeiture, the cops simply take whatever they want, without a trial, and no way to get the assets back, or guilty until proven innocent, at best. Not exactly a thing for americans to be proud of, although hitler would have cheerfully approved.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:He got away with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Which is exactly why we should go after his kids. They should be sitting it jail next to him, whether they did anything or not.

      Sound unfair? This is EXACTLY how the United States treats drug dealers and other petty criminals. If someone skips bail, their family members are arrested. If they can't get the son, they go after the mother, etc. If they didn't do anything, they make things up (it's near-impossible to sue to police for false arrest).

    12. Re:He got away with it. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Freedom of Association, maybe?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    13. Re:He got away with it. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Because the disney corporation is against it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:He got away with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the child has money that was gotten via espionage, the money should be taken away along with any other money generated by investing the money. Or do you prefer to let the kid think that being an enemy spy pays? It was never his in the first place. He should know that being a spy will ruin your family, not set them up for life. The father's past salary and all property purchased with it should also be confiscated.

      Otherwise you'll have people doing this because they know the penalty will just be jail time in the federal country club and their family will get to keep the money.

      Fuck that. Espionage should not be an option to set your family up for life. They should end up on the street. Otherwise there's no real deterrent.

    15. Re:He got away with it. by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, This is a no-no. "Corruption of Blood" is when a person is convicted of treason and the federal government punishes the person's innocent family members also. It is against the law and is described in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. (from Wikianswers)

      The problem is that there is a clash of civilizations and the USA is owned by the very civilization it opposes.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    16. Re:He got away with it. by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      1. His children didn't make that money. He did, by selling state secrets.

      2. We do it all the time. Someone facing drug charges can have their assets stripped merely on suspicion. Evidence is not required, nor is a guilty verdict.

      3. On a more meta level, any time you incarcerate someone with children, you are punishing the child for the sins of the father.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    17. Re:He got away with it. by philipgar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it has to meet the US definition of treason. For instance Robert Hanssen was sentenced to treason for spying for the Russian government, and betraying the US government. As far as I know we were never officially at war with the Soviets.

      Looking at the UC constitution, treason is defined as follows:

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

      It only states adhering to the country's enemies, and NOT specifically countries we are at war with. Otherwise the definition of treason would end up being pretty ridiculous.

      Phil

    18. Re:He got away with it. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      If somebody is arrested, then they will either be held, or be released. If released, then they will be either released on their own, OR they have to post a bail. The bail says that if you skip the process, that you forfeit the money. Now, families can chose to put up the car, the house, etc for the bail. BUT, if that person skips out, then those things are forfeit. That is NOT making somebody else responsible for the sins. That is somebody else saying that I took responsibility and did not do a good job. And NO, they do not arrest other family members or make things up.
      OTH, ACs on /. LOVE to make things up. Obviously you are one of those. Basically, you have shown that you have no sense of ethics. I am guessing that you are a registered neo-con.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    19. Re:He got away with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should his kid get to have the profit the man made illegally, betraying the country the kid is in? the man is 74. I doubt he has any young children

      If you steal my car and sell it and give the money to your kid, why the hell should your kid get to keep it?

    20. Re:He got away with it. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to you that criminals work under the assumption that they don't get caught and that thus harder punishment doesn't really do much?

    21. Re:He got away with it. by zstlaw · · Score: 1

      The problem is you don't want the government to seize assets without cause. China is having some nasty issues around this right now.

      If corrupt officials can destroy family fortunes they can seize the wealth of families that oppose them. How would you fight a court case with all your money seized? How could you prove you were targeted for supporting opposition party and that evidence was flimsy or planted?

      Right now, If they can prove the money came from illegal activities it can be seized by the court as evidence, but in general you do not want the government to be able to destroy the fortunes of those it considers enemies of state. Someday you may piss off someone in power and a limited government is a good thing.

    22. Re:He got away with it. by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3.
      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

      "But no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood..." no, we shouldn't punish his family. Just him.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  6. C'mon, let 'em build their own... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    fleet of Burans, that should keep them busy for the next decade.

    It might even give us a chance to roll out a new heavy launcher before the rest of the planet :(

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  7. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shuttle tech *IS* out dated, from the '70's

    1. Re:Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The thing is, they may have let them do this. I had a couple of inside sources at JPL while this was all being discovered, and the info he got, might have gotten the Chinese pointed down the wrong direciton.
       
      LOL! captcha is rubbers

    2. Re:Mod parent up by vxice · · Score: 1

      it is only entrapment if he was forced to commit the crime. Otherwise the u.s. govt may have been collecting evidence, doesn't make a big difference if it was incorrect info or not. If he thought the info was real and gave it away it still is a crime.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    3. Re:Mod parent up by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      So you're going to bust a guy for buying a bag of oregano?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Mod parent up by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      if he was trying to buy pot from someone who was supposed to be selling him pot, then sure. Nothing against pot, but he was attempting to break a law. it doesn't make him any less guilty for doing it poorly.

    5. Re:Mod parent up by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      -1 Doesn't get "A Few Good Men" reference.

    6. Re:Mod parent up by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Not all of it is.

      The engines, fuel pumps and materials used in the Shuttle are all state of the art.

      Just because the tech is from the 60s and 70s doesn't mean its outdated.

      The best heavy bombers in the world, the B-52 are 1950s and early 60s tech, the B-1B are 1970s and 80s tech, the Tu-95/142 are 1950s and 60s tech. The SR-71 was designed and built in the 1960s and nothing has matched it yet.

      The engines, pumps, metals, solid rocket boosters are all technologies the PRC doesn't have or is lacking in.

    7. Re:Mod parent up by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 0

      You realize that ATTEMPTED murder is actually different from murder, yes? They're both the same thing, but one is executed poorly. Don't see why it should suddenly not matter if we're talking about drugs, or tech.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    8. Re:Mod parent up by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      I know what you're saying here, and I'm trying to think up legal reasoning. I think it's because the act is done. In attempted murder, the act is not completed, where as in buying drugs that end up being dishwasher soap, the transaction was made, the intent was clear, the action was completed.

    9. Re:Mod parent up by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Actually pretty soon the Chinese will be leading the US in rocket engine design. As the SSME is retired, the US will stop manufacturing staged combustion engines. While the Chinese are going to use staged combustion LOX/Kerosene engines (never manufactured in reasonable numbers in the US) for their new Long March 5 rocket. It is also likely easier to get the info about the RD-0120 rocket engine considering the connections the Chinese have had for a long time with Russian industry.

      They could use a lot of info on reusable thermal shielding for reentry however. The Russians do not have enough experience in that area.

  8. the current shuttle? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    If its the current one in use don't see the problem really, all the tech in it is like what 20 years old?

    1. Re:the current shuttle? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Other than the glass cockpit and new russian derived turbopumps most of the tech on the Shuttle is ~40 years old.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:the current shuttle? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Other than the glass cockpit and new russian derived turbopumps most of the tech on the Shuttle is ~40 years old.

      They also bought the "space throne" from the Russians.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet

      "In 2007, NASA purchased a Russian-made toilet similar to the one already aboard ISS rather than develop one internally.[5]"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  9. Jsut make it open by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my opinion it would be a better for everyone if public-funded research bodies like NASA( and the equivalent in every other country) made their non defense-related information freely available to all anyway.

    1. Re:Jsut make it open by elhondo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that just leaves Tang, actually.

    2. Re:Jsut make it open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto. Even most of the defense-related stuff should be made freely available. I think that the progress that society would see moving forward would outstrip the damage that any wars could cause due to acquiring this tech. Defense tech doesn't have that much of an edge anymore, anyway. Capitalism works. Industrial stuff is better.

    3. Re:Jsut make it open by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The space shuttle is defense related. It's been used in about 10 classified missions, presumably having something to do with spy satellites.

      Moreover I would speculate that the avionics systems, materials, high-pressure pumps, and other technology that went into the space shuttle would be both non-obvious and directly applicable to military aircraft and/or missiles.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:Jsut make it open by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      That works for me
       
      Wasn't Velcro space tech?

    5. Re:Jsut make it open by magarity · · Score: 1

      I think that just leaves Tang, actually
       
      Tang is already for sale Walmarts all over China.

    6. Re:Jsut make it open by zemblue · · Score: 1

      I concur, it is in the best interests for all governments to co-operate in all areas of research. We have larger problems to worry about than keeping secrets from each other. They already are, the media just doesn't seem to be able to make it clear to us. Plus, he was framed and is innocent.

    7. Re:Jsut make it open by r00t · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't be getting as much info as we'd be giving away, even if we could trust other countries to abide by that sort of deal.

      It's all defense-related anyway, when you consider how the state of the economy affects war. An impoverished USA can't afford the gear to protect allies like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

    8. Re:Jsut make it open by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1
      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  10. That's not strong by redalien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China won't consider 15 years a strong sentence when they're happy to execute people left right and centre.

    1. Re:That's not strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say this...and it's scary that it got modded "funny" unless it's that whole, "funny because it's true.." thing.

  11. Sensitive? by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    How sensitive can that technology be when we're retiring the space shuttle soon and have no replacements past the drawing board stage?

    1. Re:Sensitive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How sensitive can that technology be when we're retiring the space shuttle soon and have no replacements past the drawing board stage?

      Vehicles like the Space Shuttle have one capability that no other orbital vehicle past or current possesses... a large cargo capacity with down-mass (the mass of cargo it can land with) approximately equal to up-mass (the mass of cargo it can launch with). I don't think the Chinese want an exact copy of the the Space Shuttle, but I could see reasons why they'd want technology that enables this capability. Remember, once in LEO a craft is potentially 90 minutes from anywhere on the globe*... No I'm not worried about the Chinese trying to invade the US, Canada, or Europe from orbit, but there are other places outside of South Eastern Asia they may want to project power to in the future. Furthermore, even if they decide the US went down the wrong path with our shuttle you can often learn more from detailed analysis of failures than successes.

      *Oh and if you think I'm being too speculative about this, the US military is seriously interested in orbital or sub-orbital spacecraft to deliver both troops and equipment anywhere on the globe quickly.

  12. i'm going to get modded troll... by nycguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...but I've known quite a few Chinese Americans, both from the mainland and from Taiwan, who despite having become citizens here seem to be more concerned about their former homeland than their new one. I remember when the American spy plane had the collision with the Chinese fighter jet in 2001, almost every Chinese person I knew, despite being US citizens, was adamant that the US should apologize. During the Tibet unrest, many Chinese Americans I know accused the US media of bias--begging the question why they care so much about how China is portrayed if they're now Americans. Maybe this is no different than past waves of immigrants, and maybe it's no different than some Jewish Americans (even born here) who show more support for Israel than they do for the US. It's also no different than Muslim immigrants to Europe who show more allegiance to their religion and the ummah than their adopted nations. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if anyone else had any thoughts or experiences in this matter. In short, in today's world, what are the real loyalties of an immigrant population? This story obviously shows one--money--but the question is whether there's anything beyond that.

    1. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if anyone else had any thoughts or experiences in this matter. In short, in today's world, what are the real loyalties of an immigrant population?

      As an immigrant myself, I can tell you that it depends on the reasons why one leaves his homeland. When it's money alone, loyalty usually doesn't change (it's not really something that can be bought for money). But when one is genuinely dissatisfied with the overall direction of his original society, it's another story.

      Of my fellow Russian immigrants, I've seen both kinds. Some come here (Canada) for higher quality of life, but generally try to disassociate from the local culture, and do the same for their kids - their primary social circle is all-Russian, they force their kids to speak Russian first and foremost (even though kids readily pick English first, because they use it more in school) etc. Quite often, such people return as soon as they feel that the quality of life back home has improved enough for them; sometimes, their kids do when they grow up. I've met a few such returnees from U.S. back in Russia as well, and all were rather derisive about American culture and societal norms.

      Others come here to settle down first and foremost, and they generally try to integrate, even though it's nigh impossible for the first generation (too old to re-learn everything). The parents usually still have a mostly-Russian social circle, but they try to reach out beyond it. Their kids, though, consider themselves Canadians first and foremost, and their language preferences (they know both, usually, but they prefer English) and behavioral patterns are mostly local.

      In conflicts of interest such as the one described in TFA and by you, consequently, the first group would tend to align themselves with their country of origin, while the second group would support their country of residence.

    2. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by JerryLove · · Score: 3, Funny

      Recall that China officially and overtly indoctrinates it's citizens to be pro-Chinese-government. It's like wondering why a Baptist is republican.

    3. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think you're a troll, but I do think that conflating national affiliation with cultural identity doesn't work.

    4. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your impression is somewhat incorrect. Most immigrants are concerned about both their country of origin and their adoptive homeland. You can't expect immigrants to suddenly stop caring about where they come from. Your perception that they seem to side with the origin country has more to do with the fact that they have a more complete perspective on certain situations and therefore might side with a party that you, as someone with a purely western perspective might not expect.

      Part of what I mean by that is that in western thought I find that there is often a convenient mental trick utilized to ease discomfort when dealing with international events. Specifically, I'm talking about the discreet separation of people from government. It allows Americans to dissociate themselves from the actions of their governments, and it allows many western to believe that criticism of China can somehow be specifically directed at the government.

      Take the events you brought up as example:

      In the spy plane case, this should be fairly easy to understand. We have a US spy plane outside Chinese airspace spying on China. Consider that in reverse... could a US citizen really accept that the spy plane is an act against his/her government and not his/her country? I know some of you believe that the reverse case is different because the US citizen is more intimately involved with the US government, but this ignores that ultimately the Chinese government is still made up of Chinese people and though it might not fit in your views, the CCP is made up of citizens as well. The CCP does in fact have "grassroots", and the relatively recent historical significance of the party to the countries history does tie them strongly to its people.

      In the Tibet case, I had access to reports from both perspective, and whether or not the reporting was accurate, I think that many westerners did end up with an incomplete understanding. I believe that partially has to do with the fact that Tibet and Tibetans are romanticized in the west, and consequently it was difficult to believe that they could riot violently. Remember that Ghandi wasn't the only one involved in the Indian independence movement; there were less peaceful men involved as well. Most in the west are satisfied with hollow words of support for the Dhalai Lama and maybe an occasional donation, and largely don't care enough to understand the history or the situation. To Chinese people, that event involved ethnic Han being violently killed or assaulted by Tibetans. Some in China, and probably most Chinese in foreign countries, do understand the historical context somewhat (meaning that they do know of the Tibetan grievances), but that doesn't make them any less sympathetic to the Han that were victims of the violence. So of course they were pissed with coverage that largely focused on the government's reaction rather than the rioters themselves.

    5. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when the American spy plane had the collision with the Chinese fighter jet in 2001, almost every Chinese person I knew, despite being US citizens, was adamant that the US should apologize...begging the question why they care so much about how China is portrayed if they're now Americans

      I don't know if you're a troll or just an idiot, but it's one or the other. Being a citizen of a country does not mean you should support all of its policies. That goes double for being an American citizen. If you're a patriot, you will fucking disagree with the government, very loudly, every time you dislike the actions. Then you're going to try to vote the people you dislike out and convince others to do the same. This country has a tradition of government for the people, not people for the government.

      As for the US spying incident. We all know nations spy on each other as a matter of course. When you're caught you should be embarrassed. Do you think the Chinese government should apologize for its spying activity which is getting such publicity these days? Do you feel you deserve it? Then why don't you feel we need to apologize when we're the ones doing it? Spying is a strange game. You can't afford to stay out of it, but everyone seems to agree it's a bad thing. What that means is...don't get caught, or risk the diplomatic consequences of being caught. Sometimes that involves publicly apologizing for your actions, sometimes it might involve economic sanctions, sometimes it might involve a break of diplomatic ties or even war. Depends on the action that was being performed and on who the players are.

      Finally, when someone becomes a citizen of the United States, they don't instantly lose all cultural ties, nor as they expected to. You don't become American and stop supporting your previous nation. Becoming an American citizen means a promise to defend the US Constitution, to defend the United States against its enemies, and to sever ties of allegiance to the countries you were previously a citizen of. That means that you don't spy on the US for your country of origin, it means that you promise to take arms to defend the US if it comes under attack, it does not mean you now need to change all your beliefs to line up with those of the people who were born in this country. You still get to be you, nobody can take that away.

    6. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by spxero · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work, but being proud of where you came from and being loyal to the place that has given you a better opportunity for life (especially at 73!) should be two separate things.

    7. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by malloc · · Score: 1

      it would be interesting to see if anyone else had any thoughts or experiences in this matter. In short, in today's world, what are the real loyalties of an immigrant population?

      I know many Chinese immigrants in Toronto. A few of them came for idealogical/freedom issues, but by far the vast majority came for simple economic/status gain (status, since immigrating to a foreign country is generally seen back home as a step up). For the economic immigrants I'm regularly shocked at how much the "history" they were indoctrinated as kids they still believe. E.g. despite having access to tons of historical reference, or South Koreans themselves, they still believe the the Korean war was an unabashed/unprovoked all-out assault on the poor Korean people (i.e. communists in North) by the evil Western nations. This is still believed with such vehemency that they would refuse to wear a poppy on Remembrance Day (which in Canada remembers soldiers in all wars, including WW1, WW2, Korean,...) and are surprised that my wife, also a Chinese immigrant, would do so.

      When you think about it, they're saying never mind the sacrifice of all those in WW2 that forced the Japanese to stop raping our country (Oh right, because foreigners didn't, it was glorious Mao that kicked the Japanese out!), the atrocities of the evil Korean invasion are too great, so no Remembrance Day for anyone.

      The mind, it boggles.

      --
      ___________________ I want to be free()!
    8. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Asian living in the USA I'd like to add a few things...

      The thing I remember most about trowing up in a mixed middle class part of S. Florida was the racism from other kids (not all from white, it was about equal from black, white non-Jewish, Jewish and Latin groups). The Asians were always the smallest group though, so they seemed to get it a lot worse. For one, it was perfectly fine for other groups to use racial slurs against Asians but not against African-American or Jewish groups. Forget it if you were White non-Jewish, because anyone could say anything and it was dismissed. In my own experience, all groups were equally racist.

      As an honors student, I socialized with many kids in the honors classes. These were primarily Jewish, Asian and White non-Jewish. For all the talk about anti-semitism, the Jewish students were often the most racist against African-American and Semitic non-Jewish people. African-American students seemed equally racist, but they were a lot more vocal about it. White non-Jewish/non-Hispanic were as vocal as African-American students, but not when African-American students were around. I didn't associate with Latin/Hispanic students much (language barrier), but I remember the Black/Hispanic arguments and a few fights.

      Asians, of course, are extremely xenophobic. They made distinctions amongst themselves ("mainland Chinese" versus Filipino versus Vietnamese, etc.). They completely distrusted most African-Americans. They thought white Americans were dumb (though they emulated them most). I think, in overall attitude, that Asians in my school were closest to the Jewish students.

      In all, I think that people living in the US start to associate more with somewhat arbitrary racial groups than any other country. I.e., in some other countries your financial status is more important than your "race". In others (Latin countries), the common language defines your social group. In others, it's religion or profession.

      Anyway, these are all just perceptions. High school was twenty years ago for me. I know that stereotypes influenced my perception of other racial and social groups as much as anything, and what we did as teenagers is not necessarily how we act as adults, but it takes a great deal of discipline to not let these stereotypes color our adult actions.

    9. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I remember when the American spy plane had the collision with the Chinese fighter jet in 2001, almost every Chinese person I knew, despite being US citizens, was adamant that the US should apologize.

      Mostly agreed on what you have to say about integration into the U.S.. But the part I've quoted above is a cultural thing. In Asian cultures, apologies are a big deal. In this type of case, the one who created the situation should apologize, regardless of fault or the specifics of the incident. The U.S., being the one doing the spying, was the one who initially created the situation which caused both planes to be there. So in the minds of the Chinese, the U.S. is the party expected to apologize, open and shut case. It's why you hear all the time about Japanese managers and government officials apologizing and stepping down from their posts because something bad happened on their watch, even when you could not reasonably have expected them to have prevented the incident. It's just something that's expected of people in charge.

      (The reverse does not apply here. Industrial espionage is the norm in Asia. The Chinese won't consider this something worthy of apologizing to the U.S. for because it was pure espionage, and there was no loss of life. Byzantine unwritten rules like this are part of what makes business and politics in Asia challenging.)

    10. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Bicx · · Score: 1

      I have known and worked with several Russian immigrants, and almost all fall into the former group. It seems that for a majority of them, even basic things like American sense of humor were foreign to them (and vice versa for those of us who hung around them). They were decent people, but I could tell that they came from a culture very different from the U.S. and Western Europe.

    11. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, it's anecdotal. On my side, I can tell that most people I know actually fall into the latter group (those who are trying to assimilate, or at least to get their children to assimilate). But it is clearly biased, because I sympathize more with that group (I don't believe in multiculturalism, and think that immigration without intent to culturally assimilate is, at best, meaningless, and at worst, actively harmful to the society which allows such immigration).

    12. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      the one who created the situation should apologize, regardless of fault or the specifics of the incident.

      That is a completely meaningless statement. You can't determine "who created the situation" without specifics of the incident. By your logic a victim of a violent crime "created the situation" by being in the same place as the criminal.

      Your one sided view defies reason. The only reason the US apologized was so China would free the US airmen they took hostage.

    13. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      ...Their kids, though, consider themselves Canadians first and foremost, and their language preferences (they know both...

      Ah, you're not in Quebec, I'm guessing, else you'd call it three (French being the third).

      But then, how much immigration does Quebec get, compared to (for instance) Brittish Columbia?

    14. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my best friends is Russian. He is pretty much integrated though the situation is tenuous at times. A lot of social norms in Russia, don't fly here because of cultural differences. He has a lot of trouble dating US women especially, so generally dates Russian women.

      I understand this and accept him for who he is, despite the cultural differences. I like Russians and think they are great people. A lot of Americans can't see past the cultural differences to understand what Russian people are all about. They are loyal to a fault, will do anything to help their friends, and usually make much better friends than people from the US. They are far more loyal than 98% of people I know from the US and with the important stuff, far exceed what most Americans are willing to do for each other. but also expect the same in return.

      If he moves back to Belarus I will be pissed =D He's my boy. I thoroughly understand why he'd rather have me hang out with him and his buddies than the other way around. I don't mind. I always have a good time ; )

    15. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But then, how much immigration does Quebec get, compared to (for instance) Brittish Columbia?

      Actually, Quebec is a popular destination lately, and there's an easy explanation for that. It has a distinct arrangement where province alone decides on immigrants they want to accept, and they tend to pay a lot of attention to the language. And it's somewhat easier to score enough points to get permanent residence in Quebec if you can be bothered to learn French, and you don't even have to learn it all that well.

      In general, though most ex-USSR immigration to Canada tends to be to Ontario - it already has over 500k Ukrainians and Russians alone. BC has only about half as much. I don't know how it is for all countries of origin, as e.g. Chinese clearly prefer BC, and there are a lot of them, too.

    16. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by IronChef · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you didn't get modded down, it's worth discussing.

      My experience is a little different. I used to know many Taiwanese and on the few occasions when this sort of thing came up, I got the impression that they had some real investment in the USA.

      I knew a Taiwanese shop keeper that was open 365 days a year. He once told me, "On American holidays, I am Chinese. On Chinese holidays, I am American." He seemed to genuinely love his new country and took citizenship seriously.

      It just depends on the specific people and how the culture of the area shaped up, I guess.

    17. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it's nearly impossible to assimilate for the person who was raised in another country. Far too many things are ingrained at early age; the best we can do is consciously mimic the norms of the new society, but that kind of self-control tends to be blown away in stressful situations.

      That is not to say that one doesn't acquire a lot of new habits. Not all things are that deeply ingrained, and even old dog can learn new tricks. The result is that most people who have lived for several decades in another country still don't look like natives there, but they also become different from the norm in their country of origin, sufficiently so that it is immediately evident from their behavior if they ever visit that country.

      It's especially funny when it's a person from the "returnee" category who is disparaging the culture from which they've returned - there was one coworker of mine like that, who returned from the States after living there for 17 years. Every time he went on another rant about how stupid and soulless Americans are, speaking Russian with a definite American accent (occasionally slipping into English when he couldn't remember the Russian word for what he wanted to say), and accompanying it with distinctly American hand gestures, I couldn't help but chuckle.

      The real criteria for assimilation is the second generation, children who were either born in the new country, or arrived there as kids. In families who want to assimilate, such children usually do so, and, short of appearance, you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between them and the natives. This happens naturally even if their parents are mostly ambivalent about the whole thing.

      In families that consciously resist integration, the parents actively preclude their children from assimilating by restricting their social circle to children of other similarly-minded immigrants, speaking to them only in their native language (and reprimanding them if they speak local language at home or in other social settings restricted to their cultural group), trying to limit their access to local mass media and products of local culture (TV shows, music, movies etc), and so on.

    18. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, but on the other hand, constant USian harping about how great their country and they themselves are compared to everyone else in the world can really start to wear on an immigrants nerves after a while. For lots of people, where they live is just a place to live, not a thing to be worshipped.

    19. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but I've known quite a few Chinese Americans, both from ...

      I'm sure both of these Chinese Americans take offense at being called "quite a few" ...

    20. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      For a little perspective, I try and imagine myself becoming an expat in another country.. If the country I moved to had a beef with my old country, I would take some interest, and I might have a little perspective on how my former country thinks.. I don't see a problem with that, however actively taking sides against my new country would be wrong.. I don't think there is anything wrong with immigrants maintaining an interest in their old country or providing their views on political situations.. I do however have a problem with flag waving.. It chaps my hide to no end to see an American citizen or illegal immigrant waving some other countries flag in a protest in the country they are living in.. It in fact, turns me against whatever cause they are fighting for no matter if it's just or right, because it makes me want to round em up, load em up on a bus, and drop them and their flag in the country the flag represents.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    21. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to add here that it varies WILDLY by area. Where I grew up for example there wasn't that much stereotypical rascism. That means that a lot of people have individual prejudices against groups, but it was primarily 'class based' rather than race based. Rich kids congregated together, middle class together, and poor together. On the other hand I do agree with the statements about jewish and black kids seeming to be the most rascist out of the group, although when I was a kid whites were the LEAST likely to, because we were the most stigmatized if we made any comments seeming even slightly out of place (This was during the big push for anti-sexist rascist, etc attitudes, only it never seemed to get enforced PAST the white kids. This led to a number of situations where people of other ethnic groups would use slurs and other comments, white kid would go complain about it, and then get in trouble for using it to state it had been said, but whoever had really said it would never get told it wasn't alright.)

      But that may just have been for my area. (Cali)

    22. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or a university graduate is a Democrat?

      I heard far more partisan preaching at school than I ever have at church (and I find it annoying in both contexts).

    23. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      I remember when the American spy plane had the collision with the Chinese fighter jet in 2001, almost every Chinese person I knew, despite being US citizens, was adamant that the US should apologize.

      Umm... no shit? I'm Canadian mate, but that one is just obvious.

      Their airspace, so their fighter had the right to be there. The US government may not recognize it as theirs, (it was over the sea, right?) but the US government has a history of ignoring the borders of sovereign nations when it pleases them.

    24. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Taiwanese Canadian living and working in US, I agree with your view point to certain extent and I'd just like to add few points.

      The core of the matter is a question of naturalization and integration which requires efforts from both the immigrant and their new neighbours. In that respect, multiculturalism in Canada have been very successful IMO. I don't want to point fingers here but let's just say the situation in US is a totally different story.

      What it comes down to is is most people care about people they know and love ( including their own pride and self-esteem, and that's where indoctrinated believes kick in ). If there's no one they care about in their new country, then it's just a shelter, not a home.

    25. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "A nation is a territory or country as political entity or a grouping of people who share real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, often possessing or seeking its own government" --wiki article

      I would care to bet that those immigrants who still strongly feel affiliated with their former country are also still strongly entrenched in their original cultural identify (religion, food, language, friends, most likely unchanged from former country). It isn't that way 100% of the time, but I'd bet it is 75%+.

      Nationhood and culture are independent by definition, but in practice, often very intertwined.

    26. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not so much that the two are conflated, but in many countries (non-N/C/S America) culture, society and country are all closely linked. Many European and Asian countries are/were built on ethno-cultural nationalism (Italy, Korea, France etc.) This is the one place where the US distinguishes itself by saying there is a difference between nationality and culture, and not having an all-encompassing "national culture".

      Bottom line: in many countries, national pride and cultural pride are considered to be the same thing.

    27. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by sydneyfong · · Score: 0

      As others have already mentioned, did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, that it's not because those people were somehow still considered themselves to owe allegiance to their former countries, but just that what they said was closer to the objective truth?

      Maybe the US shouldn't act all righteous after being caught poking its nose into a foreign country?
      Maybe the US media really is biased in reporting the incidents about Tibet?

      And why should they care how China was portrayed? Is it not enough that they desire at least some level of objectivity? Does demonizing China help anybody at all (except those who profit from fear)?

      Instead of accusing them of sympathizing with the country that they should have severed ties with, why not use them as a glimpse into the window the truth of a country so often subject to distortion or outright lies by the US govt and media?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    28. Re:i'm going to get modded troll... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Recall that China officially and overtly indoctrinates it's citizens to be pro-Chinese-government. It's like wondering why a Baptist is republican.

      OK, but then pardon the naive question - if they love China so damn much, then why do they come here?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  13. Why not the death penalty? by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In many countries spying results in the death penalty, why not in this case? Spying is a grevious crime against one's country and has been handled by the death penalty across countless cultures since before recorded history. For that matter, if your in a position of trust (vs just sneaking around) than it isn't spying, but treason. With a sentence of 15 years we appear to be weak, not strong from the eyes of someone who could consider the crime.

    Certainly a spy that was caught by China would receive the death penalty, so nothing new there. Nothing against the Chinese (vs another nationality), but this business of pandering to foreign governments that spy against us has got to end.

    1. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >>if your in a position of trust

      You know what else should carry the death penalty? People who can't spell you're properly.

      Your/You're

    2. Re:Why not the death penalty? by ph1ll · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The death sentence for "economic espionage" [from TFA]?

      That seems a bit harsh....

      As I understand it, the guy was working for Boeing - which is not the same thing as working for the government. Sure, it was on an outsourced government project. But if the information really were that essential to national security, why the f--- would you outsource it?

      (Or am I being somewhat naive about the "military industrial complex" bogeyman, where Boeing and the US Government become synonymous...?)

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    3. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Space tech is basically ICBM tech which is weapons tech. We fight economic wars (see: Iran, Iraq, North Korea) not bullet wars (see: number of US casualties since 1970 vs pre 1970. War's war and when someone is killed by the leaked tech, it's murder.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Why not the death penalty? by L3370 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not so easy to carry the death penalty for treasonous crimes here in the U.S. because treason has to be witnessed and confirmed by no less than 2 people. Treason was one of crimes that the US founders decided to go heavy with detail. They understood the treason argument was an effective tool for tyrants, so they wanted to be very clear on the subject.

    5. Re:Why not the death penalty? by BZ · · Score: 1

      > why the f--- would you outsource it

      The US government "outsources" _all_ its military procurement, in the sense that they don't operate their own manufacturing facilities, don't necessarily do all the military R&D, etc.

      So if, say, you're working for Northrop Grumman (the only manufacturer of US nuclear aircraft carriers and one of the two manufacturers of US nuclear submarines) and you're on a classified project and you leak the details of that project to some other country... then that's espionage, period.

    6. Re:Why not the death penalty? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Bleeding heart conservatives...

      When I die, it will almost assuredly be horrible. Cancer, stroke, heart disease, old age consumed with arthritis in a nursing home after outliving all my friends and family, gunshot, car accident, etc. We're all under a death penalty, and for almost everyone death will be horrible.

      When someone on death row dies, they're euthanized painlessly like a beloved household pet.

      Everyone has to die, but not everyone has to spend years in captivity. I'd rather let traitors and murderors rot in prison than putting them painlessly out of their misery. The cost of incarceration is, imo, tax money well spent.

    7. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Its probably cheaper this way.

    8. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never worked on a military contract in the private sector. It's considered treason to betray the project.

    9. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the reduced sentence is part of a bargain the US government usually makes with a spy who's been caught, in exchange for information from them about who they're spying for and the extent of their spying. it's not as showy as an execution, but it's often more pragmatic. Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who spied for the Soviets for years, was never executed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

    10. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Draek · · Score: 1

      In many countries spying results in the death penalty, why not in this case?

      Because the US is still trying to maintain the illusion that they hold a greater respect for human rights than those other countries.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    11. Re:Why not the death penalty? by rwv · · Score: 1

      Boeing competes with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for government work. They're separate and independent companies who bid on the same multi-billion dollar contracts based on the theory that competition drives quality up and costs down. For intents and purposes, these companies are required to follow strict government rules to win contracts... so they can be labeled as quasi-government companies.

      As far I know, the Chinese have one national defense company and the implication of this article is that spies infiltrate American (and likely Russian) offices and keep costs down by stealing the original research.

      One academic criticism of the Chinese culture that I've heard from an American professor is that they value getting the final result more than the path used to arrive at the final result. Original research is just as good as copying from a neighbor. Follow the path of least resistance. It's a completely logical way of thinking unless you consider cheating to be unethical. The professor who shared this with me said that his research had found it very difficult to educate native Chinese students because there is this natural inclination to "cheat" more-so than from other cultures which value individual achievement.

      Which way is right? It's hard to say. Powerful arguments can be made for both the "competition" model and the "collaboration" model.

    12. Re:Why not the death penalty? by brufleth · · Score: 1

      Working on a government project at Boeing IS working for the government. It isn't outsourcing. It is hiring a vendor to do a job for you. Yes, there is a difference. The government does not have the facilities and expertise to support the program. Short of the government socializing all industry that's how things work. The military industrial complex label is applicable but depending on your views of the space shuttle program this is a positive result. A private company without the aid of the government was nowhere near creating a space shuttle. The government had to collude with big industry players to make the shuttle happen. Did this make a lot of money for some companies like Boeing? Almost certainly. Is it bad? Well that's another matter and people could easily argue either way. It certainly has served to put the US in a more dominate role globally.

    13. Re:Why not the death penalty? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think that we SHOULD bring it back. This was not about economic spying. This is to develop new rockets, NEW MISSILES. This is about WEAPONRY. The man should be hung AND it should be televised. This is somebody that openly betrays all Americans, in fact, Westerners. I have little need for this kind of trash.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being a little naive yes, but not completely.

      The government outsources sensitive projects all the time, because the brightest minds don't work for government salaries / under government rule. They work in the private sector where they make bank as a contractor for doing the same objective: under their own rule.

      Particularly the US places huge trust in the aerospace industry, and the defense industry.

      The reality is that the US government doesn't have the agency it needs to do what you suggest it should do. DARPA is a funding agency, it has independent R&D but its not the skunkworks techno-thrillers make it out to be. Actually - the Navy has a decent R&D agency lately but its still not the private sector.

      But yes - things that ideally should not be outsourced for the sake of national security, are frequently outsourced because otherwise they wouldn't be researched in the first place. Perhaps the most frightening prospect in the whole issue though is that 'smart people have no nationality' - they know how to espouse loyalty and see the value in living under a strong, stable economy - but they are fairweather fans.

    15. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many, many contractors that hold Top Secret clearances that work in a multitude of DoD agencies.

      Just because they are contractors instead of govvies shouldn't make any difference in sentencing. Suppose that he didn't work for anyone, and just magically obtained the documents and gave them to China.

      It's still spying, it's still treason.

    16. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Or am I being somewhat naive about the "military industrial complex" bogeyman, where Boeing and the US Government become synonymous...?)

      Yes you are.

    17. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the technology was covered under ITAR/EXPORT control, he was absolutely trafficking in government secrets, not just committing "economic espionage".

    18. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are spying other countries all the time and we believe we have right for it. We has spy airplane, CIA, ..etc. We have people trespassing to other countries, i.e. Iran, N. Korea by accident all the time. Spy vs Spy.

    19. Re:Why not the death penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so easy to carry the death penalty for treasonous crimes here in the U.S. because treason has to be witnessed and confirmed by no less than 2 people. Treason was one of crimes that the US founders decided to go heavy with detail. They understood the treason argument was an effective tool for tyrants, so they wanted to be very clear on the subject.

      And your founders are right in doing so. There are many countries today that hide behind democracy but are really tyrannical. Many of them use secret polices under the false pretense of national security to lock up oppositions and suppress free speech. A good example is the country between Thailand and Singapore, where a particular ethnic group is deemed supreme to others and deserve special rights and privileges, any arguments and objections are deemed a threat to national security and is subjected to prison with trial. Go figure.

  14. Let them have the plans by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I say let him go and let China do something with the plans if they so wish. Its not as if the shuttle program is continuing after this last flight or that NASA is going to do anything useful with the plans, other than let them gather dust or get lost. They don't have much of a budget anymore to even create a suitable replacement at this point. As a fan of the shuttle (despite the cost issues), it would be nice to see someone wasting their money on keeping the dream alive.

    I know this is probably not a popular viewpoint in the USA, but I just want someone to get us to the moon again, somehow in my lifetime.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Let them have the plans by whatajoke · · Score: 1

      but I just want someone to get us to the moon again, somehow in my lifetime.

      Are you a han chinese?

    2. Re:Let them have the plans by rwv · · Score: 1

      They don't have much of a budget anymore.

      They don't have an Apollo/Cold War budget, but Obama's executive plan published last Monday calls for increasing the NASA budget to build-up a Commercially-viable space-worthy fleet that can cheaply take humans safely into LEO. This is (IMO) better than setting a short-term Moon goal.

      The current Moon-plan is moth-balled... but NASA has been helping to fund multiple competing companies with their own test rocket launches since last year. This is a good alternative to the dream of getting back to the Moon by 2020.

    3. Re:Let them have the plans by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I wish that I had not posted, and instead had chosen to moderate. I would have hit you as a troll or overrated (stupid if I could). America is going back to the moon. This time, we are going back with private space as well as our partners from the ISS, maybe more. I suspect that India and maybe Brazil will be invited. I have little doubt that we will be back on the moon by 2020. And as to these engines, they will be used again for Direct.

      If we build Ares V NOW, we will kill NASA and our ability to go the moon. TO jump from 30 MT to leo to sending 188 MT to leo is expensive and foolish. Instead of launching 1-2 PER month, we will end up launching 2-3 times a year. BIG WASTE. What we really want is to build up our space infrastructure so that we are launching 2-5x EACH MONTH. From there, when we are ready to go to the moon, we need to have a LV that can do 70MT/leo. That is what Direct Jupiter (which uses the SSME) would have. Once we have more than just boots on the moon (as in setting down a base), THEN we need to have constellation caliber. BUT, if we build Ares V today, it KILLS the moon.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Let them have the plans by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      You can rate me whatever you want, since if it triggers a decent or insightful comeback, then its been beneficial.

      I suppose the issue I really have is that NASA was once considered a prize jewel in our drive towards the future. Today I am not sure what to believe its place is, between budget cuts, brain drain and politics that effect its general direction.

      The real solution, IMHO, to future space exploration is finding a decent space vehicle. Such as vehicle needs to be able to be able return to orbit in a matter of days and require the least man-hours possible to return to orbit. Not depending on expensive contractors would also be beneficial. Once this problem is solved (this is by no means easy), getting to the moon becomes easier and more realistic. One advantage private companies have over a government funded organization, is that they are generally protected from political decisions and therefore can concentrate on a more long term plan, on the condition that the investors don't expect an immediate return.

      The other thing we need to do is ensure we don't lose the knowledge that we spent the last 40 years accumulating, since this would force us to relearn import stuff and allow other nations to gain an advantage over us. If we are talking international cooperation, then maybe we should be looking into licensing foreign technology if that is what it takes to keep NASA in space at less cost. Russia and Europe both have examples of technology that is shown to be working and can fulfill the short-medium term of access to space.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:Let them have the plans by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, Europe has only Cargo access, which America has heavier lift and if at same rate of subsidies would be cheaper. Russia has announced that they will raise the rate per seat. Last year, they were charging 28 million. For 6 rides over 3 years, we will pay 51 million /seat. Russia has announced in the last day that they will raise it even more. They are talking 100-150 million/seat. That is because of lack of competition.

      America is sitting on the edge of a precipice where we get to orbit at a fraction of the current costs: 20 million / seat. WIth a bit of private competition and another space station, costs are expected to drop to 15 million /seat. If we things right, in 2013, we would pay no more than 20 million. More importantly, we would have multiple locations to go to. How to get the multiple locations? Bigelow Space Stations. That is important to get us to the moon. Once we have multiple stations in leo, and we have relatively cheap access to space, then we can go to the moon.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. This will not stop spying by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judge Carney is being very short sighted if he expects that this "strong sentence" will dissuade people from stealing technology and giving it to China. I would be less likely to want to steal secrets from the Chinese Government because, if caught, I could be tortured and subject to unthinkable brutality. Note that this is not a suggestion that we implement torture. But another slashdotter noted that Chung's retirement in Federal Prison will give him better healthcare options than many Americans that have been good, law-abiding citizens will have access to. And, these Americans have worked hard for all of their lives. Honestly, a better punishment would be to strip Chung of his citizenship and deport him to China and finally to sanction the Chinese Government.

    1. Re:This will not stop spying by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Honestly, a better punishment would be to strip Chung of his citizenship and deport him to China

      What, so they can give him a medal for years of good service?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:This will not stop spying by dosilegecko · · Score: 1

      OR, send him to the sun in a retired shuttle.

    3. Re:This will not stop spying by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He would be given a million dollars and treated as a hero there. THAT is what you want to do? Yeah, please do not throw me in the briar patch.

      But we SHOULD sanction the Chinese gov. These are active spies since this is a cold war with us. We are insane for allowing this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's interesting that as much as we Americans deride the terrible space shuttle, only the Russians were able to build anything like it, but only the Americans were ever able to operate one.

    Kinda makes you wonder, that, if we are not going back to the moon, can we at least keep these shuttles flying, or gasp, build a more modern one. I mean, the whole point of the new NASA way is to perfect in orbit assembly, and it seems we're kinda doing that now with the space shuttle and...

    maybe we just need to make a new space shuttle that can be boosted farther into deep space, if we need to.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think the Shuttle is terrible It just should have been replaced. It has been flying for about 30 years now.
      Building a more modern Shuttle. I would would really like to see that. The X-33 was supposed to be a shuttle replacement but it got canned for what I think where not good reasons.
      Also you don't want to boost the shuttle farther. What you want is a space tug that takes payloads higher. That was supposed to be part of the shuttle program but it got canceled.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Terrible reasons actually... If they had just decided to use Aluminum tanks instead of the(at the time) troublesome composite tanks they could have had the X-33 flying...

    3. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Terrible reasons actually... If they had just decided to use Aluminum tanks instead of the(at the time) troublesome composite tanks they could have had the X-33 flying...

      Way too heavy. The whole X-33 project depended on a bunch of exotic technologies simultaneously succeeding. Linear aerospike, metallic heat shield "tiles", exotically structural materials... May as well have bet the farm on a warp drive and computer AI, too.

      Reusable SSTO does not appear to be technologically or economically viable at this time. Its like demanding Christopher Columbus wait until he can fly a supersonic Concorde across the pond instead of using his wooden sailboats.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It got canned because they chose a vaporware fake idea over a freaking working prototype.

      X33 was a joke. They did not even have a working idea on how to make it, they never got the aerospike engine to fire.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X was a working prototype that they flew a whole bunch of times until they had a landing gear failure and it tipped over and blew up when full of fuel. They did not rebuild it as they were running out of money and NASA wanted something that was vaporware instead.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Way too heavy. The whole X-33 project depended on a bunch of exotic technologies simultaneously succeeding. Linear aerospike, metallic heat shield "tiles", exotically structural materials... May as well have bet the farm on a warp drive and computer AI, too."
      It was an X program. That is the entire point of and X program. It is too push technology.
      That is what drives me crazy. That is what NASA should be doing pushing technology.
      The X-1 was a super sonic rocket plane when airliners where still droning along at maybe 300 MPH.
      You start with the X-33 project and build from their. That is the problem with NASA IMHO. They throw away working systems before they have the replacements working!
      NASA should have two systems working at all times. One tried and true and one very cutting edge. While we where working on the Shuttle we should have been flying Saturns and Apollos.
      While we where flying the Shuttle we should have been working on and flying the DCX and X-33.
      Look at how the military does it.
      While the F-15 was deploying the F-4 was still being produced and developed. While the F-22 is deploying the F-15 is still being updated and the lines are still open.
      That is the correct way to do it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Great Idea, but look at the military budget vs NASAs budget!

    7. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I never said it would be cheaper.
      Frankly I think that is a big problem with NASA. A lot of the choices made in the Shuttle design where cheaper to develop but added to the cost per flight.
      But the point that I tried to make but did a bad job at was.
      No X project can have to many new technologies. That is what an X program is about.
      Take a look at the X-15. It used a throttle-able liquid fueled engine, a refractory metal airframe, an RCS, and goodness knows how many other brand new technologies. They all had to work. Guess what they didn't at first and a lot of problems had to be solved but in the end they did work.
      Yes you are correct it would cost more but we would get so much more out of it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was an X program. That is the entire point of and X program. It is too push technology.

      I think the problem is the X-33 didn't fit the X program very well. The X-15 had an equation, every pound of vehicle weight means X lower top speed and/or X lower altitude. With the X-33 orbiter, its orbit or don't orbit. I think it would have been a PR disaster if it didn't quite make it. Thus either it'll suck, or they'll push the limit too far and blow it up and that'll suck. Perhaps they beat the vegas odds and get everything to work perfectly, in which case it'll suck when people ask why spend all that cash when multistage disposable boosters are a much cheaper program. Kind of a no-win situation.

      No one remembers the X-3 very fondly, although it was an interesting aircraft and provided valuable results.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      As a Mechanical Engineer I agree with you, I personally think we should raise NASA's budget an order of magnitude, but that's another story.

    10. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Reusable SSTO does not appear to be technologically or economically viable at this time.

      Well, we don't really know because we haven't really tried it yet. The X-33 was a mishmash of technology R&D projects that, realistically, nobody ever expected to fly. The design might have been appropriate for perhaps a third-generation SSTO, not first.

      Consider: It had a vertical takeoff, horizontal landing (VTHL) flight profile. This meant two orthogonal load-bearing paths, greatly increasing structure weight. It meant that an aborted launch would result in loss-of-vehicle (compare DC-X's (VTVL) successful abort after an external explosion at launch), requiring that much extra in terms of fail-safe and redundant systems. The V-shaped fuel tank was a structural disaster waiting to happen, with a lousy structure-to-volume ratio and weird load paths at the intersection of the two cylindrical sections. Et bloody cetera.

      Nobody has yet made a serious attempt to build the sort of SSTO that Phil Bono, Boeing, Chrysler (back when it was in the aerospace biz), McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics, Gary Hudson, Max Hunter, and a host of other rocket scientists and companies have been proposing since the 1960s: a vertical takeoff and landing, circular aerospike, more-or-less conical vehicle. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin vehicles and a couple of Japanese vehicles come close, but all are so far sub-scale test vehicles and the first Blue Origin vehicle doesn't use an aerospike.

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Rockwell's Rocketdyne division ground-tested a large-scale linear aerospike years before the X-33 project started. (Also circular aerospikes.)

      Other than that, I agree with you. I witnessed one of the DC-X flights. It is truly amazing to see a rocket throttle up its engines, soar to several hundred feet of altitude, and then just stop there and hover before translating sideways and descending, like some invisible giant moving the world's biggest chess piece.

      --
      -- Alastair
    12. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The X-33 was suborbital. The next vehicle was supposed to be orbital. I think most people forgot that part and where looking at the next vehicle.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Okay I tend to agree with you about some of the SSTOs that they showed in the 70s but I disagree with you about the X-33.
      The load paths for Vertical take off and horizontal landing where not a big issue.
      The Shuttle and frankly every aircraft that fly's must deal with a thrust load and a landing load.
      The X-33 empty would have been pretty light so the landing load penalty would be pretty small. Far smaller than the landing fuel penalty that a VTOL SSTO would have.
      Yes the V Shaped fuel tank would have been a challenge but not as bad of one as you imagine
      An abort wouldn't have to mean the loss of the X-33. Depending on the failure mode the X-33 could transition to horizontal flight and dump fuel just like every airliner on the planet.
      A VTOL SSTO actually has more total loss failure modes than the X-33 does. Also the DC-X had to carry the landing fuel all the way to orbit and back unless they refueled in orbit for the landing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The Shuttle and frankly every aircraft that fly's must deal with a thrust load and a landing load
      "Every aircraft that flies" does not deal with a roughly 30-times empty weight longitudinal load (3 G acceleration at a rather optimistic 90% fuel fraction). Most aircraft (except fighters) don't have a thrust/weight ratio greater than one, let alone thirty.

      (Most of the Shuttle's launch load is taken by the External Tank, not the Orbiter. That's a lously comparison.)

      The X-33 empty would have been pretty light so the landing load penalty would be pretty small.
      Landing gear has to support multiples of the airframe weight because aircraft rarely touch down at a zero vertical speed. That's tough when you have to maintain flying speed too. (Which is why pilots spend so much time practising landings. I know, I am one.)

      Also, the X-33 empty would be much heavier than a similar-payload VTVL configuration due to poorer surface-area/volume ratios and the associated heavier structure.

      Far smaller than the landing fuel penalty that a VTOL SSTO would have.

      No. The "landing fuel penalty" is no worse (and probably less) than the weight of the wings (or aerosurfaces if a lifting body) for a horizontal lander -- wings that are dead weight in a vertical ascent profile. (Worse than dead weight, they also add drag until you're beyond the atmosphere.)

      Yes the V Shaped fuel tank would have been a challenge but not as bad of one as you imagine

      The V-shaped tank was a challenge. The damn thing kept cracking at the joint. They had to add a lot of weight to reinforce it. And it still had the lousy surface-area to volume (= stucture weight to volume) issue.

      An abort wouldn't have to mean the loss of the X-33. Depending on the failure mode the X-33 could transition to horizontal flight and dump fuel just like every airliner on the planet.

      Good luck with that. It didn't have the lift for horizontal flight with more than a few percent of fuel load (by which time it's in space). Even if the airframe was intact. In one of the DC-X launches, a build-up of hydrogen gas near the vehicle detonated at launch, damaging the aeroshell to the point where pieces of it were dropping off as the rocket climbed out. The emergency abort was initiated, it stopped ascent, burned off some fuel, and landed perfectly. Try that with something that depends on its shape for lift -- or a safe reentry.

      A VTOL SSTO actually has more total loss failure modes than the X-33 does.

      Nope. See above. They have roughly similar total loss failure modes (engine explosion, heat shield failure, etc) but for other failures the margins are much broader for VTOL (eg the DC-X example).

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:What could possibly be new about the shuttle? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      As a Mechanical Engineer I agree with you, I personally think we should raise NASA's budget an order of magnitude, but that's another story.

      I think we should too, and take it out of the military and entitlements, if we have to. We would be more secure and have more jobs.

      --
      This is my sig.
  17. Red herring by jockeys · · Score: 1, Troll

    Am I the only one who thinks the $3M remark is a red herring?

    Treason is treason regardless of how much money you make doing it. He should swing for this, treason still has the death penalty.

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
  18. Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by rdmiller3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Chinese government wants to promote their own agenda. Let them do so using their own advances, not by stealing the advances built by cultures which actually encourage advance.

    Let the culture which reveres "ancient wisdom" prove its value by using feng shui to launch their space vehicles.

    1. Re:Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Let the culture which reveres "ancient wisdom" prove its value by using feng shui to launch their space vehicles.

      I'd really rather they didn't. I only just last week got my living room harmoniously arranged. Do you know how much those consultants cost?

    2. Re:Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... says the country that imported its technology, social structures, philosophy, laws, religion - heck, even its language - from Europe.

    3. Re:Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean the tech and geniuses that the USA plundered from the Nazis?

    4. Re:Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese government wants to promote their own agenda. Let them do so using their own advances, not by stealing the advances built by cultures which actually encourage advance.

      Let the culture which reveres "ancient wisdom" prove its value by using feng shui to launch their space vehicles.

      You're being retarded. What has Chinese culture got to do with the Chinese Government. There are many Chinese ethnic groups outside of China in many countries that still practices Chinese culture and has nothing to do with the Chinese Government. As an example, the country of Singapore is predominantly Chinese whose forefathers came from China before the modern Chinese government you see today. The generations of Chinese ethnic groups in this country have nothing to so with the Chinese government. The country was formed by descendant of pre-world war 2 chinese migrants.

      If you want to insult Chinese and the Chinese government, know the difference between the country, its citizens and the culture. By Mocking the culture you're mocking all Chinese culture based countries that has no affiliation to China.

    5. Re:Promoting their agenda using others' advances. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      ...same country created (after they liberated the natives) by people fleeing persecution in Europe. Those Pilgrims were having other peoples views stuffed down their throats, and, and, - hang on isn't modern China the free state created after it threw off the shackles of... Aw, hell I live in Australia and I'm not koori... (puts bucket on head and starts shouting).

  19. It's only fair by koan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    George W Bush borrowed quite a bit of money from China to finance his war in Iraq, we are still borrowing money from China, why shouldn't they be able to take what they want from this country? If you have an issue with what I have said then flip the roles and see what you think, then ask "Why are we borrowing money from China?"

    Tough times are here and staying for a while, I would rather have tough times with little or no debt than tough times with massive debt.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:It's only fair by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      You see, generally when you borrow money there's some sort of agreement as to how it's paid back. for example, when you borrow money to pay for college or a car loan the bank doesn't have the right to send someone into your house in the middle of the night to take your wedding tape or private letters. If that happened, you'd be well within your right to shoot that person in your house. Likewise with spies.

    2. Re:It's only fair by jhfry · · Score: 1

      We don't borrow money from China.

      We offer bonds with very low interest rates on an open market... one of the largest buyers of these bonds is the PRC.

      Owning a bond, or several billion of them, does not entitle you to anything but the agreed upon terms set when you purchased the bond.

      If you buy stock in a company and those shares don't come with voting rights, you can conceivably own a majority of the company's wealth and still have ZERO power over the company. For example, Google has shares that are given 10 votes per share, owned mostly by the founders of the company. If any single entity owned every share other than those 10 vote shares, they still are not entitled to control the company.

      Finally, national debt isn't a debt in a traditional sense. Bonds are issued against wealth that is not liquid in order to use that wealth to promote further growth. People pull out equity on their homes to make improvements all of the time... their net worth can actually increase even though they actually owe the bank more money. The fact that the US is considered to have so much value that we can issue bonds to the tune of Trillions at 0 interest goes to show that our nation is doing VERY well financially, we haven't even begun to over extend ourselves. True, at some point we will have to repay the bonds, but the hope is that when we do, our nation will be worth more than before due to the investments made with the cash we received from their sale. To repay, we just sell more bonds.

      Any 2nd year business major can tell you that a corporation that doesn't leverage its assets in order to gain capital for further investments is a corporation that is poorly run. Corporations cannot operate on revenue alone, they need to sell stock or take out loans against the value of the company in order to capitalize their growth. Thats what the US does, and should be doing. Part of me would love to see just how much cash we could rake in if we tried... can you imagine how it would effect the value of our nation if we instantly doubled our investment in education, research, and infrastructure. Those are investments that we should be making and the way to do it is to leverage our worth.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    3. Re:It's only fair by jriding · · Score: 1

      If you really agree with this then we should pay $0.10 per gallon of gas.
      I mean we went in and helped out Iraq so lets "take" some of that oil.

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    4. Re:It's only fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dwell on irrelevant points much?

    5. Re:It's only fair by koan · · Score: 1

      That is exactly why we went to Iraq, however my personal opinion is gas for personal vehicles should cost $7 to $8 per gallon, when it was $4 a gallon people (where I live) drove slower on average, took less frivolous trips by car, and the general air quality improved.
      All of that is based on my personal observations and impressions, please don't feel any need to debate or agree.

      But there is this, in recent years America has been built around the car, leading to sprawl, pollution, and impractical city design. Short sighted thinkers, greed and a host of other ills has led us to oil dependence and shitty little rubber stamp strip malls, fast food stops and an overall "ugly" infrastructure.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    6. Re:It's only fair by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First, we are borrowing in no small part because they have their GD money fixed to ours AND have increased trade barriers to our products, dump their products on the west. Per the deal to get Perm. Most Favored Nation AND WTO, they are suppose to do NONE of these things. We need to revoke MFN and then work towards getting WTO revoked as well (that will be difficult, most likely impossible). But if either China obeys their treaties, OR we did the above, we could get our economy back.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:It's only fair by koan · · Score: 1

      and my point is "why shouldn't they take everything else as well?".

      You live in a World that you feel has laws and morals, I live in a World where: if you have power use it, regardless of law or morality, just be prepared to pay the price if you lose power.

      This country is dying, lets get on with it, then and only then will people be forced to face the errors of their ways.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  20. Aboard by pgn674 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I was definitely more excited when I read that as

    A Chinese-born engineer was sentenced Monday to more than 15 years in prison for hoarding sensitive information aboard the US space shuttle with the intent of giving it to China.

  21. Re: Just make it open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion it would be a better for everyone if public-funded research bodies like NASA( and the equivalent in every other country) made their non defense-related information freely available to all anyway.

    While I agree with you in principle, where do we draw the line on defense-related technologies? The technology used in the shuttle program, while dated, still has several potential military applications.

  22. He was just a bit too early... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I heard on the radio that after the final shuttle mission NASA will be selling off the shuttles. Why try to smuggle out the information when you can just buy the shuttle outright and reverse engineer the entire thing in your own country?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:He was just a bit too early... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Probably because nasa will be removing all the really fun and interesting bits? What nasa is selling are museum pieces - literally, they aren't going to be flight ready or capable.

  23. Concorde vs. Concordski by rarel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A funny thing happened in the 60's during the development of Concorde, the USSR was of course spying on the Europeans as they were also workin gon their supersonic Tupolev. One of the (numerous) big issues was that of the rubber with which to make the tyres, as it had to be solid enough to resist the speed and whatnot. In a documentary from 99, one of the European engineers said they had noticed spies collecting material on runways after tests, so they created a sort of unusable goo and pasted it on the runways for them to collect. He said he'd have given anything to see the Russians' faces while trying to make sense of the stuff to create tyres with it...

    1. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More often than not the data collected by the Soviet agents was only used to doublecheck the work of Soviet scientists and engineers.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ironically, Concorde's tires proved to be fatal.

    3. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by rdavidson3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they bought those set of tires from the Russians ;)

    4. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In fact, Ivan Kurchatov (in charge of developing the first Soviet nuclear weapons) specifically kept the intelligence he was provided away from his subordinates. He used the data as an 'answer key' to compare to the results of their work and tests they brought him - and if they got it wrong, he just sent them back to try again (usually without giving them any hints).

    5. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the ones who stole the software for the gas pipelines - (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39147917,00.htm)

    6. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what I tried to tell my math teacher when she caught me looking at another students test in class. Strangely enough it didn't go over to well...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    7. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by chrysrobyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironically, Concorde's tires proved to be fatal.

      While a stray piece of titanium from a previous jetliner may have shredded the tire and caused the fuel tank to puncture, I think I could more readily argue that the fuel tank having insufficient protection is the real problem. I would prefer to have any kind of tire event keep all passengers, structural elements and fuel tanks intact. Judging from the amount of abuse subsonic jetliners have sustained over the last 40 years, and the fact that Concordes were retrofitted with better tank protection before the economy tanked and they were all grounded, I really have a hard time blaming the tires.

    8. Re:Concorde vs. Concordski by zemblue · · Score: 1

      The concorde program was stopped because it was nearly a spaceship; we were getting places really quickly. Believe it or not - there are people who dont want humanity to progress.

  24. Re:We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are scaring me...

  25. Web 2.0 why not Cold War 2.0 by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ahh nothing gets a people's mind off their own corruption and failing nation like a good old fashion cold war.

    People are easily united against a common foe.

    Nothing like calling up China and saying, "Hey that Cold War thing with Russia was real good for the economy. Wanna play the bad guy for a generation or two?"

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Web 2.0 why not Cold War 2.0 by Bragador · · Score: 1

      I think this is becoming a reality with the current news about Taiwan. Check this: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/02/201021125330175987.html

    2. Re:Web 2.0 why not Cold War 2.0 by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      See the following quotes from Chinee officials, as published in the London Sunday Times:

      "
      China's Hawks Demand Cold War On The US: MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”. The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing. According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak. In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power. Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”. An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949. “We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference. He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.” Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

      But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further. “This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.” A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”. Chinese indignation was compounded when the White House said Obama would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, in the next few weeks. In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall. President Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later. Diplomats say they have been told that there was “frigid” personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations. Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: “It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.” (London Sunday Times, 2/07)

    3. Re:Web 2.0 why not Cold War 2.0 by rsborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing like calling up China and saying, "Hey that Cold War thing with Russia was real good for the economy. Wanna play the bad guy for a generation or two?"

      Amusing, but you forget, unlike the USSR, the P.R. of China owns several trillions of dollars of our collective asses... and you can thank the past four administrations for that situation (especially "W").

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  26. Just let them steal it. by drolli · · Score: 1

    AFAIU US is not going to build more of them. Let it replicate by the chinese, they can test i a few times and when it find you buy it back for 1/4 of the price it cost you to build it in the US. Works for iphones, thinkpads, should also work for shuttles. Even better: Develop the next generation together with china.

    1. Re:Just let them steal it. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Hasn't NASA just changed their policy on private development? Now they can just buy shuttles and stuff from China - just don't lick the paint!

  27. Let them have the secrets by mdm-adph · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it'll help launch a new space race, I'm almost for letting them have it all.

    I want to see the Chinese do something completely wild, like launch an 180-day orbit mission to Mars or something, completely blowing away anyone's expectations of what they're able to do, a la 2010.

    That'll restart the space race.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    1. Re:Let them have the secrets by RichM · · Score: 1

      I want to see the Chinese do something completely wild, like launch an 180-day orbit mission to Mars or something, completely blowing away anyone's expectations of what they're able to do, a la 2010.

      Like, inter-continental nuclear missiles?

    2. Re:Let them have the secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to see the Chinese do something completely wild, like launch an 180-day orbit mission to Mars or something, completely blowing away anyone's expectations of what they're able to do, a la 2010.

      (Possible spoiler) Though given how things ultimately worked out for the Chinese in 2010, let's hope for their sake they don't take that analogy *too* far. :-)

    3. Re:Let them have the secrets by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they already have them.

      So do we, by the way. So does Russia. No one's nuked anyone else yet.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    4. Re:Let them have the secrets by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Hey -- they still made it there first. ;)

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  28. Re:funny whole bit- a chronology by Rip+Dick · · Score: 1

    lol wut

  29. If he were an American using torrents ... by Wokan · · Score: 1

    If he were an American using torrents to distribute those plans he'd have gotten 20 years instead, but only because the MPAA would have sued him instead claiming the shuttles were used in several movie scenes.

  30. Was there proof? by bostei2008 · · Score: 1

    This is a real question:

    Was there any proof for the allegations?

    All I could take from the article was that he took lots of material home. I do not read anything about a proof for giving the information to China, or receiving money for it for that matter.

  31. Faggot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have given him the death penalty.

  32. Sell it by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    We should just sell the entire shuttle program to the highest bidder (the Chinese), including all the equipment and documents.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  33. Chinese knockoffs? HOW NOVEL! by t33jster · · Score: 1

    If the Chinese knockoff space shuttle is anything like the Rolex I bought in Tian Jin, then there's really nothing to see here. It will stop working as soon as it gets a little rain on it.

    --
    Take off every 'sig' for great justice.
  34. love your country always by vxice · · Score: 1

    love your country always, your government when it deserves it. simply as that.

    --
    every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  35. Why not give it to em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If China wants Shuttle technology, we should just sell it to em. We're not interested in using it.

  36. Science by nawitus · · Score: 1

    Why is anything about the Space Shuttle secret in any case? Space projects should be open to the public and there shouldn't be any secrets. If the technology is secret the human species won't get much utility out of that huge spending.

  37. Re: ancient wisdom of the day by BForrester · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad that the use of spies is not at all part of Chinese "ancient wisdom."

    "Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results."

    -Sun Tzu, the Art of War. (6th century BC)

  38. China's Motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your not cheating your not trying ... apparently that is true of the government too. Hey, lets stop buying their immoral cheap junk. Outside of voting your wallet, China doesn't care what we think anymore.

  39. intent? seems a bit nebulous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone here gets 15 years for hoarding porn with intent to rape.

  40. Bad guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said he wanted to write a book and that is the reason he borrowed the papers. Probably some jealous douches reported him as a spy.
    Moreover, they take cases against individuals and term them into "examples" and provide so called justice and as such. If it was a company doing this they would probably would have gone scratch free and would be sent home with some bonuses, a couple of bailouts and a kiss on the bum.

  41. You can't "steer" the shuttle by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I isn't really possible to "steer" the shuttle, except to a very limited extent by the OMS, and you mostly use those for reentry. The external tank is emptied out by the launch and then jettisoned. This is why there are launch windows when the shuttle is launched to meet up with the ISS, or the Hubble, etc. You don't just go blasting away like an Asteroids video game. You can probably shift your orbit 10 or 20 degrees to the left or right over the course of day or two, but that's about it.

    Second, preparing the shuttle for launch is difficult, time consuming, and expensive, as opposed to just tying in a few numbers and pushing the button to launch a conventional ICBM. So you would only arm the Shuttle if nuclear war were imminent, and then it could easily be blasted while it was being set up.

    Third, placement of weapons of mass destruction in space is prohibited by treaty. It would be pretty easy to detect violations, without even having any spies on the ground.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:You can't "steer" the shuttle by r00t · · Score: 1

      Third, placement of weapons of mass destruction in space is prohibited by treaty. It would be pretty easy to detect violations, without even having any spies on the ground.

      We have lots of classified stuff in orbit. How would you detect that a military satellite is capable of spitting out a nuke?

      IMHO, it's idiocy to assume that one's foes haven't already violated the treaty, and idiocy to not violate it. That's how the game is played, and you play to win if you care about your country.

    2. Re:You can't "steer" the shuttle by orasio · · Score: 0, Troll

      IMHO, it's idiocy to assume that one's foes haven't already violated the treaty, and idiocy to not violate it. That's how the game is played, and you play to win if you care about your country.

      Well, in fact, if you did actually care about your country, and you don't want it to be nuked, you would find out why your "foes" want to nuke you, and convince to not want to do it, with expensive gifts or the promise of expensive gifts.
      In the last century, it's the only thing that has given any results for now.

  42. spying not all ordered by government by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I would call just an another kind of money-making business. Much of it is self-directed with the intent to sell it to an agency or business, to sell it directly, or to start a business with it. I suspect this holds true for internet-hacking: lots of it is self-directed.

  43. We are not in a cyber war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are in a cold war. China has their money fixed to America's in spite of their treaty with us and their belonging to WTO. Likewise, they have higher trade barriers now, then when we first made the treaty with them. They are dumping products on the west, as well as subsidizing much of the production.

    Add in that they are building up their military, but not in a defensive manner, but in Offensive. That will only work if you intend to attack. They are adding several different space stations. One is ran by their space agency. That agency is funded and controlled by their military. Though, it does have part of their information given out. BUT, they have another space station going up that will be MILITARY ONLY. Little info is given out about. The interesting part is that there is ZERO advantage to a military to have a person on space station UNLESS YOU HAVE WEAPONS that you want to use. Because it is so trivial to take out those stations, they are only of use in a first strike scenario.

    China is in a cold war with the west. We are trying hard to avoid it, though to Obama's credit, he is slowly stepping up repercussions for CHina to continue this course. He is now taking actions against the dumping and the subsidiaries. A few cases have been denied but we have called China on more in the first year, than W did his entire 8 years. We are also a long ways away from what EU does, even though CHina does more dumping here than there.

    Hopefully, China stops this reckless actions, but I doubt it.

    1. Re:We are not in a cyber war by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you are getting your information about the space stations - but as far as I know there are no space stations run by the Chinese.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  44. Re:Good way to create tension by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
    Why was OP modded troll? It's quite true. Governments, US included, maintain power by scaring the living shit out of everyone. Wars are started at least in part as a way for governments to expand their own power and keep the populace subservient. Remember at the end of the Cold War, the US government was at a loss for a while for an enemy. So, the Chinese began to fill that roll. Then, 9/11 happened and we had a more direct enemy, namely the terrorists.

    Has everyone forgotten that, before 9/11, "news" organizations like Fox were banging the war drums against China. Then, when 9/11 happened, that all magically got put on the back burner. China was suddenly not such an immediate threat. Oh, and Pakistan was now our ally. Pakistan had *always* been our ally. Now, I guess people aren't as scared shitless of the terrorists as they were 8 years ago, so they have to bring up the China threat again.

    Now, go back to bed America. Watch your mindless television and shut up. Your government is in control.

  45. I (indirectly) work for BOEING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be precise, I work for an outsourced metal fab company, that works with digital part models created by BOEING.

    (It should be obvious why I am posting as an AC)

    I get to see fully articulated models of "Export controlled" military aircraft components, and accurate digital representations of military aircraft skins. (They are NURBS models, in case you were wondering, so they are accurate to the mathematically ideal level, which means you could derive radar profiles from the models if you were truly interested in doing so.)

    All I would need to "Steal" this information is a USB pen drive, and some time.

    Bureaucrats like to pretend that there are checks and balances in place to prevent this kind of data theft, but as far as I can tell, these checks and balances boil down to:

    1) you must be a native born US citizen to review these documents

    2) If you try this, you will probably go to jail.

    3) Your odds of getting such cushy employment again (in the US) is pretty much guaranteed to be zero to 1.

    otherwise, I could have half the damn BOEING MMA's (Multi Mission Aircraft-- essentially a highly versatile light bomber with cargo and troop transport capabilities; A modified 373. That much is public knowledge.) structural details in my personal possession by now.

    Personally, I consider the "Chinese agent gets shuttle plans" to be a "So what, so do hundreds, if not thousands of other supply house workers."

    The real story here, is why was a chinese national permitted in the engineering section? He should have failed the "native born" requirement for candidacy.

    If you ask me, the BEST way to steal this information is to send a plant disguised as a poorly educated janitor.

    Janitors have keys to every room in the building so that they can do their job. (emptying trash bins, sweeping floors, and cleaning toilets.)

    All that would be required would be for them to wait until one of the engineering staff forgot to log off their terminal all the way (I have caught at least 3 repeat offenders in our own engineering department guilty of this crime), then "borrow" their session for a few hours while they replicated the agency's structural model repository onto an external USB hard drive. After that, you just place it into a harddrive archive case, wrap it in protective foam, and ship it off to your contact. Probably in the same night, using overnight air.

    Doing this on second shift would be a cakewalk.

    Finding a janitor that is disgruntled enough, and has sufficient tech savvy to pull this kind of stunt is pretty trivial as well. I know of at least one candidate right off; he's a friend of mine who is the janitor-man for a city hall in another state. He has MORE than enough technical savvy to pull it off. (He is a fellow technology enthusiast.)

    Any boasting from the industrial giants that there are security protocols in place is not thinking things through the weakest link principle of security vantage point. As far as I can tell, this information might as well be public on the internet for all the security protection I see.

  46. Article III Section 3 Treason by westlake · · Score: 1
    Isnt treason supposed to come with the death penalty?

    The US Constitution makes a successful prosecution for treason very difficult.

    Article III. Section 3.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Article III

  47. Bravo! by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's the best, one sentence global economic over view I have read. "China is spending money on its future, we are spending money from the future."

      Nailed it. And I don't blame them for doing that, because our own domestic economic traitors handed that opportunity to them on a silver platter, the Chinese would have been 'tards to turn it down. It was completely logical what they did and are still doing, building up their own nation, "protecting" themselves, adding to their real economy, etc. Of course they would take that deal, free stuff. And how it happened is we let those wall street pirates and bribed off politicians cook this whole scheme up, then they hard sold it all over, to great success, they sold that con and got most to "believe" in it, and now they are extorting trillions in bailouts on top of that. *Extorting*.

    The Chinese guy is sort of a spy, I'm not all that concerned about him because I imagine he is merely one of tens of thousands in a similar (barely hidden) tech transfer situation. Because that's been the business of the US since they started this con job, transfer as much manufacturing tech as possible.

        The real economic and security damage has been from the short term mega profits crowd who destroyed, in a single generation, sold it off cheap for a fat skim, what it took multiple generations to build up in the US, all that wealth creation manufacturing infrastructure, all of it, from A to Z. All those value added jobs..all mostly poofed now, so multi millionaires could become billionaires and another flock of corrupt politicians could get re-re-re elected, so they could keep accepting more bribe money, all the time spouting off all these economic and social promises to the US people that they knew in advance could never be met. And they are still doing it, and tons of people asre still falling for that noise.

        They sold this global wealth transference con with massive credit expansion, got almost everyone faked out that credit=produced wealth, like it is the same thing. Something to keep the peons amused while their bank accounts, retirement savings, etc all got evaporated away, and will continue to evaporate away.

    On a small scale they call it corporate raiding. A hostile take over, sell off all the assets cheap, gut the workforce, etc. Massive short term profits are the result, wall street loves it, politicians love it, they all get rewarded for their "hard work" of gutting companies, then they bail out with golden parachutes, leaving a company in mostly name only. Everyone has seen this happen and knows exactly what that is.

      But do the exact same thing on an entire national scale, all of a sudden there's this mass blindfold gets slapped on, people *refuse* to see the situation for what it is, go into complete denial over it, claim it is something other than that. We are supposed to believe these national scale wall street/ DC politician corporate raiders that what they are doing isn't corporate raiding. They just call it something else and say it is a "good deal".

      They have been saying that for near 25 years now, and if it WAS such a good deal, why all the recent economic meltdown? Could it be, that manufacturing really is the big kahuna when it comes to creating real wealth, and not phony IOU and credit crap so called "wealth"? I say yes, it is. And we let them crooks sell it off cheap for their fat middleman skims, now we are seriously hosed, and are borrowing against our future generations, which is a pure bogus abomination, we should have never had to do that. It wasn't necessary until we let them sell off/transfer all that good tech and generations of hard work and massive investment in R&D.

  48. Bad corporate culture by PPH · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when the corporate culture gives employees tacit approval to conduct such scams.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  49. Re:What's with this hate? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Much of that same tech is for use in Missiles. This would allow CHina to build faster, more powerful ones to be able to launch multiple neutron bombs. As it is, they have re-started production of these.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  50. Remember by slick7 · · Score: 1

    The People's Republic of China (PRC)is only missing three letters, IAY, I will let you do the math!

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  51. Wouldn't a more accurate headline be: by Geminii · · Score: 1

    CHINA ACQUIRES '80S TECH

    In startling revelations, it was discovered that China's multbilliondollar industrial espionage program has been targeting things invented in the 1980s, because "everyone knows it was the coolest decade". In recent weeks, sources say they've gained access to enormous amounts of sensitive information about Commodore 64s, Nintendo Entertainment Systems, and the Yugo.

    The head of the Chinese espionage program was later seen smoking a cigar and proclaiming "I love it when a plan comes together."

  52. Shuttle for sale, lock up the one stealing info? by zaaj · · Score: 1

    But isn't the shuttle itself up for sale? So I guess we're just upset this guy was only getting $3 million for the information, vs. $28.8 million we'd get if we could get the PRC to buy the shuttle itself?

  53. What happened to death penalty for treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was this repealed sometime ago, or is the judge just being a rubber-kneed softy? What the chinaman did amounts to nothing less than treason. Make no mistake, China is our enemy, and this is no less a crime than giving sensitive information and national security secrets to Al Qaeda or North Korea.

  54. The Space Shuttle is 1970s Technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The space shuttle tech is so old, what is the big deal?
    We're talking 1970s tech much of which is probably on-line by now.
    Let the Chinese have it. Knock yourself out.

  55. Hello by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Hi hao, motherf*cker!

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  56. A Big Deal? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    What's the big deal? It's not like it was rocket science or anything.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  57. Betrayed his adopted country... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    amassed a personal wealth of more than $3 million US while betraying his adopted country.

    Sounds like he was living the American dream (get rich)

  58. I like delivering expensive gifts! by r00t · · Score: 1

    We can send a 35 megaton cobalt-salted warhead. You get it in 30 minutes or it's free. Heck, we can probably get it there in 5 minutes.

    We show we care by sending the very best. :-)

  59. fix that for you... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    ...very long.