Well, at one point the plan was to use shuttles to launch all the US satellites-- commercial, civil and military. In 1985, there were supposed to be 15 (!) launches. The shuttles were going to VERY inexpensive. The challenger accident happened, and, after a serious re-examination, the program was really tightened up and its mission was narrowed.
This led to the rebirth of the Delta, the Delta II, to launch the new GPS satellites (planned for shuttle originally). Reagan announced that shuttles were not to be used for commercial satellite launches, and the commercial launch industry was reinvigorated.
Fast forward 10+ years, the AF decided they need better launch options, give Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (nee Mcdonell Douglas) 1/2 Billion dollars each. They used this to develop the EELVs (Delta IV and Atlas V).
The point of the EELVs is to replace the Delta II and Titan IV, as far as the Air Force is concerned. Commercial satellites just aren't launched on the shuttles anymore. One or both of the EELVs may be used to launch the new space plane NASA plans to build, and variants could be used to help launch the replacement for the shuttle.
Any of these rockets can get you to Mars, or at least a Rover. NASA uses Delta IIs for most of their Mars missions, which is much smaller than the IV. Bigger rocket, bigger payload.
As for the shuttle, it's an amazing piece of technology that is completely unappreciated due to its string of successes, high cost, and early problems. The marginal cost of a shuttle is about $40 million, not $500 million. That higher number comes from dividing the shuttle budget ($2 billion) by the number of launches/year (4). Adding one flight costs $40 million that year, although it will shorten the life of the shuttle, so that needs to be taken into account.
Then realize that the shuttle is the heaviest launcher in the world right now, it can put more payload into orbit than any other system. That does not include the mass of the shuttle itself. There may not be a space vehicle as versatile, powerful and reliable as the Space Shuttle for another 50 years. It's a shame the shuttle will never recover from its early problems.
So, you want to put a nuclear weapon onto of the world's largest chemical explosion? Granted, that's why all of our ICBM's were designed for, but our unmanned rockets are probably 98-99% succesful. If WWIII has already started, that's probably good enough. I'm betting the US would have a tough time launching from Florida or California, maybe they could use SeaLaunch?
The amount of money it would take to design an asteroid satellite it large. It'd be a heavy payload going into deep-space, so you'd need a big rocket. We got those. Secure communications, we got those. You could probably jerry-rig one pretty quick if you had to, but not for a test. This is more of a long term problem, and there are more important things we need to do in space during the next 100 years than get ready for a once-in-a-million year asteroid strike.
Blowing up a nuke near an asteroid just because you don't understand the problem is the kind of solution put forward by those with little minds.
Well, there's more to the story that that. Y'see Buzz Aldrin is widely recognized as the 2nd person to set foot on the moon. Actually, he's often recognized as the 2nd person to set foot on the moon. OK, that's not quite right either, but it IS true that he was the 2nd person to set forth on the moon.
Do you want to hear the funny part? Neil Armstrong already pucnhed this guy.
Please tell me that there is more to this case, please tell me that the FBI didn't arrest these guys for stealing bandiwdth.
Many questions are unaddressed in the article which would help out. For example, had the cable company given prior notice to these guys, tell them to cut it out? Did the cable company have ANY way of controlling bandwidth on their end? Were these guys downloading information about how to build a bomb? Were they reselling the bandwidth?
I can only see a case if the cable company had given prior notice & had no way to shut off the bandiwdth, or if these guys were reselling it. Of course, the cable company can always shut off service, so what's the big-whoop? If they were actually reselling it, then yeah, arrest 'em. Otherwise, let them go after them in civil court, NOT criminal court.
Assume they weren't reselling the service. Then, the fact that this is a criminal case is a strong argument that there is not equal justice; this business clearly received special treatment if charges were filed in a case so minor as this.
OK, it's the seller. Why did the seller ship? Where did he ship it to? If I saw someone sent $600 of my money to a 3rd party, I'd track that guy down and explain the situation. The seller may be a victim, but it's Abi-word paying the full price.
So this Jun character bought the camera with stolen money. What I don't get is this. As soon as that transaction went through, abiword should have contacted all parties involved in the transaction and told them to stop. In other words, don't ship the camera, by explaining to the seller that it is being paid for fraudulently. This shifts the burden.
Then, was this money left in the Paypal account, or was paypal just used as a conduit to rip off the bank?
I have to agree with a lot of others, who say to not leave much money in the account. There's just no upside, unless they were saving up to pay a seller who wouldn't take credit card payments.
Finally, to further protect yourself if you need to se Paypal: 1) sweep your account daily, 2) contact your bank and tell them to not allow transfers to Paypal, or 3) attach a bank account to Paypal that has a low balance.
Sorry, but I think the protagonist is way off here. eBay has rules and procedures for dealing with all sorts of different issues. The band posted an item which got their attention, and pulled the auctions. Now, in this digital age, we getused to solving problems instantly. But that doesn't always happen. The bandmember started doing things to antagonize eBay, and they did not want to deal with it.
And why should they? This person is creating a big hassle for eBay, and is generating almost no revenue for them. How many man-hours does he expect eBay to spend holding his hands while they explain all the rules to him?
eBay obviously doesnot do an ideal job in this situation. But sending out form letters to dozens of lawyers (less than a week after the problem started) seems juvenile at best. Suing eBay for discrimination against independent artists- does he think a lawyer is going to take this case without some serious up-front money? Is that a protected class in the constitution or federal law?
If this bandmember takes a step back and actually tries to work with eBay or other artists who have had problems, he'll probably solve the problem a lot more effectively than he would by suing them.
One of the best points made was that the internet users calling for the need for new laws, and the technophiliacs, have a poor sense of history. This discussion proves that point.
The rise of the internet is great, but is it more of a transforming technology than was the train (overland transport), telephone (a system of contacting another user via voice-- beats IM and email), or radio? What about the birth control pill, moving pictures, sliced bread and the lightbulb? The internet is big, and changes a lot, but c'mon, is it really bigger than the pull-tab beer can?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at one point the plan was to use shuttles to launch all the US satellites-- commercial, civil and military. In 1985, there were supposed to be 15 (!) launches. The shuttles were going to VERY inexpensive. The challenger accident happened, and, after a serious re-examination, the program was really tightened up and its mission was narrowed.
This led to the rebirth of the Delta, the Delta II, to launch the new GPS satellites (planned for shuttle originally). Reagan announced that shuttles were not to be used for commercial satellite launches, and the commercial launch industry was reinvigorated.
Fast forward 10+ years, the AF decided they need better launch options, give Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (nee Mcdonell Douglas) 1/2 Billion dollars each. They used this to develop the EELVs (Delta IV and Atlas V).
The point of the EELVs is to replace the Delta II and Titan IV, as far as the Air Force is concerned. Commercial satellites just aren't launched on the shuttles anymore. One or both of the EELVs may be used to launch the new space plane NASA plans to build, and variants could be used to help launch the replacement for the shuttle.
Any of these rockets can get you to Mars, or at least a Rover. NASA uses Delta IIs for most of their Mars missions, which is much smaller than the IV. Bigger rocket, bigger payload.
As for the shuttle, it's an amazing piece of technology that is completely unappreciated due to its string of successes, high cost, and early problems. The marginal cost of a shuttle is about $40 million, not $500 million. That higher number comes from dividing the shuttle budget ($2 billion) by the number of launches/year (4). Adding one flight costs $40 million that year, although it will shorten the life of the shuttle, so that needs to be taken into account.
Then realize that the shuttle is the heaviest launcher in the world right now, it can put more payload into orbit than any other system. That does not include the mass of the shuttle itself. There may not be a space vehicle as versatile, powerful and reliable as the Space Shuttle for another 50 years. It's a shame the shuttle will never recover from its early problems.
So, you want to put a nuclear weapon onto of the world's largest chemical explosion? Granted, that's why all of our ICBM's were designed for, but our unmanned rockets are probably 98-99% succesful. If WWIII has already started, that's probably good enough. I'm betting the US would have a tough time launching from Florida or California, maybe they could use SeaLaunch?
The amount of money it would take to design an asteroid satellite it large. It'd be a heavy payload going into deep-space, so you'd need a big rocket. We got those. Secure communications, we got those. You could probably jerry-rig one pretty quick if you had to, but not for a test. This is more of a long term problem, and there are more important things we need to do in space during the next 100 years than get ready for a once-in-a-million year asteroid strike.
Blowing up a nuke near an asteroid just because you don't understand the problem is the kind of solution put forward by those with little minds.
Well, there's more to the story that that. Y'see Buzz Aldrin is widely recognized as the 2nd person to set foot on the moon. Actually, he's often recognized as the 2nd person to set foot on the moon. OK, that's not quite right either, but it IS true that he was the 2nd person to set forth on the moon.
Do you want to hear the funny part? Neil Armstrong already pucnhed this guy.
Please tell me that there is more to this case, please tell me that the FBI didn't arrest these guys for stealing bandiwdth.
Many questions are unaddressed in the article which would help out. For example, had the cable company given prior notice to these guys, tell them to cut it out? Did the cable company have ANY way of controlling bandwidth on their end? Were these guys downloading information about how to build a bomb? Were they reselling the bandwidth?
I can only see a case if the cable company had given prior notice & had no way to shut off the bandiwdth, or if these guys were reselling it. Of course, the cable company can always shut off service, so what's the big-whoop? If they were actually reselling it, then yeah, arrest 'em. Otherwise, let them go after them in civil court, NOT criminal court.
Assume they weren't reselling the service. Then, the fact that this is a criminal case is a strong argument that there is not equal justice; this business clearly received special treatment if charges were filed in a case so minor as this.
OK, it's the seller. Why did the seller ship? Where did he ship it to? If I saw someone sent $600 of my money to a 3rd party, I'd track that guy down and explain the situation. The seller may be a victim, but it's Abi-word paying the full price.
So this Jun character bought the camera with stolen money. What I don't get is this. As soon as that transaction went through, abiword should have contacted all parties involved in the transaction and told them to stop. In other words, don't ship the camera, by explaining to the seller that it is being paid for fraudulently. This shifts the burden.
Then, was this money left in the Paypal account, or was paypal just used as a conduit to rip off the bank?
I have to agree with a lot of others, who say to not leave much money in the account. There's just no upside, unless they were saving up to pay a seller who wouldn't take credit card payments.
Finally, to further protect yourself if you need to se Paypal: 1) sweep your account daily, 2) contact your bank and tell them to not allow transfers to Paypal, or 3) attach a bank account to Paypal that has a low balance.
Paypal is not a bank, they don't claim to be. And you can sue Paypal, as a judge ruled their arbitration process was unreasonable , more or less.
Good luck recovering those funds. Go after the transaction endusers, as they have some liability here for receiving stolen goods/ property.
Sorry, but I think the protagonist is way off here. eBay has rules and procedures for dealing with all sorts of different issues. The band posted an item which got their attention, and pulled the auctions. Now, in this digital age, we getused to solving problems instantly. But that doesn't always happen. The bandmember started doing things to antagonize eBay, and they did not want to deal with it.
And why should they? This person is creating a big hassle for eBay, and is generating almost no revenue for them. How many man-hours does he expect eBay to spend holding his hands while they explain all the rules to him?
eBay obviously doesnot do an ideal job in this situation. But sending out form letters to dozens of lawyers (less than a week after the problem started) seems juvenile at best. Suing eBay for discrimination against independent artists- does he think a lawyer is going to take this case without some serious up-front money? Is that a protected class in the constitution or federal law?
If this bandmember takes a step back and actually tries to work with eBay or other artists who have had problems, he'll probably solve the problem a lot more effectively than he would by suing them.
One of the best points made was that the internet users calling for the need for new laws, and the technophiliacs, have a poor sense of history. This discussion proves that point.
The rise of the internet is great, but is it more of a transforming technology than was the train (overland transport), telephone (a system of contacting another user via voice-- beats IM and email), or radio? What about the birth control pill, moving pictures, sliced bread and the lightbulb? The internet is big, and changes a lot, but c'mon, is it really bigger than the pull-tab beer can?