Note that this was not during a piloted mission, but rather during a ground exercise and is little more than a simple industrial accident that happens every day in workplaces around the world.
Note further that this was not at the full development of the technology, but in it's very early experimental phases.
The issue was solved by not feeding raw oxygen into the capsule (which was never done, nor even contemplated, during an actual mission and which many had advised against even in ground tests) and by the installation of a simple inside door handle.
Door handles are a functional technology of thousands of years standing that have yet to be overthrown by some doofy modern technological fashion.
They are simple, robust, inexpensive and possess an unmatched functionality.
As does a conventional rocket ( whose technology is now more advanced even than Saturn and Apollo technology).
The shuttle is, and always was, a barbaric kludge of various disparte technologies whose sole purpose was to follow a particular fadish notion that we should have a "space plane."
It is not a space plane. It's a van with stub wings attached to the outside of a cob-jobbed booster system of obvious and fatal failings that "glides" back to earth rather than use a parachute just so that we can pretend it is a space plane.
The X-15 was a space plane.
The "Space Shuttle" is an engineering abomination and what you get when you let a governement agency subvert good engineering principles for political purposes.
In short, it is the proverbial White Tiled Elephant that started out with the specs of a mouse.
More than that, and perhaps more importantly, it served as a placeholder. NASA and our space program still exists, however poorly.
Politically, socially, economically and technically it is much easier to reinvigorate an existing massive project than it is to ressurect a failed one.
I don't know dude. That smacks an awful lot of free markets and democracy.
That shit might fly in Iraq, but we certainly don't want subversive concepts like that floating around L.A. and Peoria. People might start to think they a say in matters, or even start to believe they have rights.
You don't want that stuff to make into the constitution and cripple law enforcement, do you?
While arguing about all of this it might be well to keep in mind that UNIX code has been in court once before.
When USL(AT&T) sued BSDI their first step was to seek an injunction against the distribution of "their" code.
The judge refused this injunction, throwing out all complaints except those regarding a mere six files while offering the opinion that it was likely that AT&T held no propriatary rights to UNIX at all, since they had freely distributed, and allowed others to freely distribute, said code for over a decade. ( Bear in mind that copyright law was very different then).
Oh yeah, the judge also found that there had actually been stealing going on. AT&T had, in fact, been stealing code from BSD. Very embaressing.
AT&T, the agressor in the case, was then forced to apply to BSDI for a settlement on terms very favorable to them rather than procede and have it formaly adjudicated that they owned nothing.
This is why BSD code is free, because it's likely that the code SCO claims such strong ownership of has little to no ownership at all, upon judicial review.
The cynic might come to the conclusion that this is the reason that the only actual suit SCO has filed so far is for contract violation, not copyright infringement, since filing such a suit might well result in a determination that SCO owns squat all.
I also have a communications device commonly refered to as a "doorbell."
Any friends who use this means of contacting me get a free cup of coffee into the deal. Maybe even some killer home made pad Thai or stir fried random.
Pretty sweet, huh?
I just picked up, over the counter, a used Dell P-II 333 with a 4 gig HD for $60. That's less than I payed for my phone. OSes are now free.
The barriers to entry have become virtually nonexistant.
". . . functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services."
So in your opinion I actually do owe someone a stamp for every email I send?
Why? I've already payed for the bandwidth.
You see, the particular infrastructure for delivering "content" is very, very relevant to how it is payed for. It is the infrastructure that is taxed, not the "service."
Traditional telephony has an infrastructure tightly controled by the few. With the internet the infrastructure, and cost/ownership thereof, is distributed amongst the users themselves.
I actually just terminated my phone service because I got tired of paying more in taxes than I was for the actual service. You want to talk to me? Fine. Email me. IM me. Meet me in my private IRC channel. Roger Wilco me.
I don't use the phone system at all now. A packet is a packet and I already pay relevant taxes and fees for my cable internet use. It's nobody's business what my packets decode into.
Well they might, but you'll find that the second contract did not resemble the first contract, which assumed a certain amount of trust.
The second contract will assume a certain animosity between the parties. For instance, there is no NDA attached to a credit card contract.
What the collector is often trying to do is to get a court ordered Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In fact you'll often find debt collectors who "advise" the debtor to declare.
Then the courts take direct control over the debtor's assests and divide them up. Assests that would otherwise be protected from direct siezure.
If, of course, the party has the emotional and financial resources to pursue it that far.
Most civil cases don't come down to a legitimate adjudicated decision. They are resolved by one party (usually the wronged one, since they are naturally the one with the least resources) being unable or unwilling to continue. ( In part because the wronged party is slightly more likely to appear as plaintiff than the other way around. If you wish to get away with stealing from someone civilly, steal everything they have. ..and then file suit against them. They're virtually defensless against you).
Here are some quotes by judges I've actually witnessed in court:
"Lady, what do you expect here, justice? This isn't about justice, it's about procedure."
"Yes, you can have some time to get a lawyer, but I'm not going to allow him to examine the plaintiff."
And directly relevant to the issue under consideration in a case where defendant requested that the judge dismiss a complaint because plaintiff had offered absolutly no evidence in support:
"It isn't the job of the plaintiff to prove their case. You are the defendant. It's you job to defend yourself."
The judge then denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff to produce financial documents relevant to the case.
Not do you, in practice, have to prove your innocence, but it isn't at all uncommon to be denied the basic rights and tools to do so.
I guess that's why they call it the legal system now, rather than the justice system.
"Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again?"
Yes. If you sign the aggrement they no longer have to rely on copyright law. They have a binding contract with you to abide their terms.
Debt collectors who buy up bad paper and then seek to recover use this trick too. The law has very carefully prescribed limits to the actions that can be taken to collect a debt, even in cases where judgement has been found against the debtor.
If they can get you to sign a contract expanding their rights to collect, by your own volition, than they can hold you to that contract.
is the projection of a fantasy. In the case of science fiction it is the projection of the present into what we percieve as an alternate, and hopefully better, tomorrow.
For those of us that grew up reading SF in the 50's and 60's that meant a bright future of computing, robots, philosophy, colonies on Mars and all with the ever present possiblility of actually coming into contact with an alien race.
Now we're living in that future and it didn't work out quite the way we imagined it. Not only is Mars virtually dead but so is the Moon. We've had to come to grips with the fact that universe is so vast we aren't actually likely to meet anyone else, possibly ever. Superstition is on the ascendent among the proles and the visions of the future expressed in 1984 and Brave New World turns out to be the most accurate of the predictions. Robots took our jobs, but we aren't allowed to become philosphers unless we wish to starve. The TV watches us.
The projection of the current state into a happy future seems to realistically revolve around clone wars that are likely to be resolved by turning us all into computer controled worker bees earning our "living" by tossing rocks over walls just so we can walk to the other side and toss them back.
Is it any wonder that people would prefer their fantasies to revolve around Liv Tyler's little elf tits?
In the medieval fantasy a the single strong man with a sword we all imagine ourselves to be can change the world.
In the future fantasy the same man is declared to be suffering from a pathological syndrome and is locked away with milk, cookies and bottle of Prozac.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that this was not during a piloted mission, but rather during a ground exercise and is little more than a simple industrial accident that happens every day in workplaces around the world.
Note further that this was not at the full development of the technology, but in it's very early experimental phases.
The issue was solved by not feeding raw oxygen into the capsule (which was never done, nor even contemplated, during an actual mission and which many had advised against even in ground tests) and by the installation of a simple inside door handle.
Door handles are a functional technology of thousands of years standing that have yet to be overthrown by some doofy modern technological fashion.
They are simple, robust, inexpensive and possess an unmatched functionality.
As does a conventional rocket ( whose technology is now more advanced even than Saturn and Apollo technology).
The shuttle is, and always was, a barbaric kludge of various disparte technologies whose sole purpose was to follow a particular fadish notion that we should have a "space plane."
It is not a space plane. It's a van with stub wings attached to the outside of a cob-jobbed booster system of obvious and fatal failings that "glides" back to earth rather than use a parachute just so that we can pretend it is a space plane.
The X-15 was a space plane.
The "Space Shuttle" is an engineering abomination and what you get when you let a governement agency subvert good engineering principles for political purposes.
In short, it is the proverbial White Tiled Elephant that started out with the specs of a mouse.
KFG
More than that, and perhaps more importantly, it served as a placeholder. NASA and our space program still exists, however poorly.
Politically, socially, economically and technically it is much easier to reinvigorate an existing massive project than it is to ressurect a failed one.
KFG
The old technology worked, even in the face of catstrophic disaster.
The new technology does not.
Me, I'll put my money on the most successful technology, rather than the merely most recent idiocy.
KFG
vi is like democracy. It's the greatest horrible-excuse-for-an-editor known to man; except for every other editor.
KFG
I don't know dude. That smacks an awful lot of free markets and democracy.
That shit might fly in Iraq, but we certainly don't want subversive concepts like that floating around L.A. and Peoria. People might start to think they a say in matters, or even start to believe they have rights.
You don't want that stuff to make into the constitution and cripple law enforcement, do you?
KFG
While arguing about all of this it might be well to keep in mind that UNIX code has been in court once before.
s ui t.html
When USL(AT&T) sued BSDI their first step was to seek an injunction against the distribution of "their" code.
The judge refused this injunction, throwing out all complaints except those regarding a mere six files while offering the opinion that it was likely that AT&T held no propriatary rights to UNIX at all, since they had freely distributed, and allowed others to freely distribute, said code for over a decade. ( Bear in mind that copyright law was very different then).
Oh yeah, the judge also found that there had actually been stealing going on. AT&T had, in fact, been stealing code from BSD. Very embaressing.
AT&T, the agressor in the case, was then forced to apply to BSDI for a settlement on terms very favorable to them rather than procede and have it formaly adjudicated that they owned nothing.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdi
This is why BSD code is free, because it's likely that the code SCO claims such strong ownership of has little to no ownership at all, upon judicial review.
The cynic might come to the conclusion that this is the reason that the only actual suit SCO has filed so far is for contract violation, not copyright infringement, since filing such a suit might well result in a determination that SCO owns squat all.
You don't have an explicit contract with SCO?
Well, as my dear old granny used to say:
"Fuck 'em."
KFG
"You don't have a girlfriend, do you?"
Wouldn't that tend to piss off my wife?
KFG
I also have a communications device commonly refered to as a "doorbell."
Any friends who use this means of contacting me get a free cup of coffee into the deal. Maybe even some killer home made pad Thai or stir fried random.
Pretty sweet, huh?
I just picked up, over the counter, a used Dell P-II 333 with a 4 gig HD for $60. That's less than I payed for my phone. OSes are now free.
The barriers to entry have become virtually nonexistant.
KFG
". . . functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services."
So in your opinion I actually do owe someone a stamp for every email I send?
Why? I've already payed for the bandwidth.
You see, the particular infrastructure for delivering "content" is very, very relevant to how it is payed for. It is the infrastructure that is taxed, not the "service."
Traditional telephony has an infrastructure tightly controled by the few. With the internet the infrastructure, and cost/ownership thereof, is distributed amongst the users themselves.
I actually just terminated my phone service because I got tired of paying more in taxes than I was for the actual service. You want to talk to me? Fine. Email me. IM me. Meet me in my private IRC channel. Roger Wilco me.
I don't use the phone system at all now. A packet is a packet and I already pay relevant taxes and fees for my cable internet use. It's nobody's business what my packets decode into.
Telephony is dead. It just won't stop breathing.
KFG
Well they might, but you'll find that the second contract did not resemble the first contract, which assumed a certain amount of trust.
The second contract will assume a certain animosity between the parties. For instance, there is no NDA attached to a credit card contract.
What the collector is often trying to do is to get a court ordered Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In fact you'll often find debt collectors who "advise" the debtor to declare.
Then the courts take direct control over the debtor's assests and divide them up. Assests that would otherwise be protected from direct siezure.
KFG
If, of course, the party has the emotional and financial resources to pursue it that far.
.and then file suit against them. They're virtually defensless against you).
Most civil cases don't come down to a legitimate adjudicated decision. They are resolved by one party (usually the wronged one, since they are naturally the one with the least resources) being unable or unwilling to continue. ( In part because the wronged party is slightly more likely to appear as plaintiff than the other way around. If you wish to get away with stealing from someone civilly, steal everything they have. .
KFG
Ah, we're young and innocent, aren't we?
Here are some quotes by judges I've actually witnessed in court:
"Lady, what do you expect here, justice? This isn't about justice, it's about procedure."
"Yes, you can have some time to get a lawyer, but I'm not going to allow him to examine the plaintiff."
And directly relevant to the issue under consideration in a case where defendant requested that the judge dismiss a complaint because plaintiff had offered absolutly no evidence in support:
"It isn't the job of the plaintiff to prove their case. You are the defendant. It's you job to defend yourself."
The judge then denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff to produce financial documents relevant to the case.
Not do you, in practice, have to prove your innocence, but it isn't at all uncommon to be denied the basic rights and tools to do so.
I guess that's why they call it the legal system now, rather than the justice system.
KFG
Pick up the soap.
KFG
"Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again?"
Yes. If you sign the aggrement they no longer have to rely on copyright law. They have a binding contract with you to abide their terms.
Debt collectors who buy up bad paper and then seek to recover use this trick too. The law has very carefully prescribed limits to the actions that can be taken to collect a debt, even in cases where judgement has been found against the debtor.
If they can get you to sign a contract expanding their rights to collect, by your own volition, than they can hold you to that contract.
Then you are, as they say, "hosed."
KFG
is the projection of a fantasy. In the case of science fiction it is the projection of the present into what we percieve as an alternate, and hopefully better, tomorrow.
For those of us that grew up reading SF in the 50's and 60's that meant a bright future of computing, robots, philosophy, colonies on Mars and all with the ever present possiblility of actually coming into contact with an alien race.
Now we're living in that future and it didn't work out quite the way we imagined it. Not only is Mars virtually dead but so is the Moon. We've had to come to grips with the fact that universe is so vast we aren't actually likely to meet anyone else, possibly ever. Superstition is on the ascendent among the proles and the visions of the future expressed in 1984 and Brave New World turns out to be the most accurate of the predictions. Robots took our jobs, but we aren't allowed to become philosphers unless we wish to starve. The TV watches us.
The projection of the current state into a happy future seems to realistically revolve around clone wars that are likely to be resolved by turning us all into computer controled worker bees earning our "living" by tossing rocks over walls just so we can walk to the other side and toss them back.
Is it any wonder that people would prefer their fantasies to revolve around Liv Tyler's little elf tits?
In the medieval fantasy a the single strong man with a sword we all imagine ourselves to be can change the world.
In the future fantasy the same man is declared to be suffering from a pathological syndrome and is locked away with milk, cookies and bottle of Prozac.
KFG
My downtown area is full of women at night, looking for a "date."
That's why most men, as well as women, choose to avoid it.
Obviously reason dictates the tiles are installed by crack hos.
KFG
Hey, thanks dude. I was planning to replicate a Sopwith Tripe down to the last detail, but now realize that the "cuteness" of that would wear off.
Now I plan to stick a Lycoming gas turbine in the puppy. Man that's going to be fun.
KFG
[humor]
;-)
Gee. Ya think?
[/humor]
"It's absolutely no surprise that they think sending letters with dits and dahs is draconian."
Yeah, like why don't they just join the 21st century or something and do it digitally like everyone else.
KFG
I realized they were talking about a computer.
KFG
I'm from NY. We only have one.
KFG
"Just because it's on a computer is no reason to get stupid about how law applies."
Ah, but what if you were already stupid to begin with?
KFG
"Ever try to have a meaningful conversation with a crowd of people?"
Yeah, I've posted on Slashdot too.
KFG
Theodore Sturgeon's famous observation that 90% of everything is crap is oft misunderstood.
In fact he was addressing this very issue. His point was that 90% of everything was crap, specifically the output of good writers.
The primary difference between a good writer and hack being that the good writer only publishes the 10% worth publishing.
KFG
Oh, wait, just a manuscript.
Nevermind.
KFG