It matters how much a Shuttle launch or a kilogram on the ISS costs.
Right. That's why when I pointed out that COTS wasn't a cheap as you thought, you started a line of bullshit about other issues and now circle back to money again claiming I never discuss money.
If Cryptome was spot on for the other three categories, you'd have a point. But they aren't spot on for any of the tests. If you can't imagine a judge would take a suit seriously, you need to take your blinders off.
I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays.
It's called pandering to their audience, or less generously bread and circuses.
It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here.
Yes, and the pattern clearly demonstrates the public is demonstrably insane. They keep electing the same people to office and then expecting a different result.
Which seems like a fine argument for NASA to move to the private sector. Privately funded by corporations with a profit motive.
If you look back to the exploration of the last frontier, I think you'll find that greed was the single greatest force contributing to its success. For example, would the West have seen nearly the same amount of interest without any gold rush of any kind?
You seem to forget the West was developing just fine without any gold rushes. (Which only happened in a very small number of places anyhow.)
What really opened up the West was two factors;
The ability to claim and hold land - backed by a government that surveyed the land and registered the deeds and provided courts to arbitrate disputes.
The ability to access markets - almost totally via railroads which with few exceptions all had significant government support/backing/subsidies of some sort.
Not to mention that the majority of the people participating in the rush for gold promptly converted (sold) what gold they found into a government backed currency...
Third, they didn't say this was a compliance failure. They said it was because of "objectionable content."
Not exactly. He SAID they told him it was objectionable content.
You must be new around these parts. Here on Slashdot we have a pretty low standard of evidence - when somebody is 'wronged' by big business or the government, their claims are assumed to be gospel truth. Actual evidence need not apply.
It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables.
As opposed to rebuilding and rechecking much of the Shuttle after every launch?
If the Shuttle had to be rebuilt after each launch, you'd have a point. But it isn't. You also should consider this - work done on the Shuttle after each launch is work preparing it for the next, and expendables need work to be prepared for launch too. (And that pre launch preparation includes building the expendable.)
I never said that rockets are simple; I said that they are (a lot) simpler (and therefore cheaper) than the Shuttle.
They are also much less capable than the Shuttle - and when you stack up enough of them to match the capabilities of the Shuttle, the advantages of simplicity and low cost are lost.
Otherwise, "we" would have left expendables far behind, in the rush to build more Shuttles, instead of what we are doing, which is (for the foreseeable future) abandoning winged craft.
If 'we' hadn't invested so much in a first generation machine and then expected it to perform as a nth generation machine, that might be true. Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle and mistaking the failings of the Shuttle as a single vehicle for being the failings of an entire class of vehicle.
(Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
OK. Maybe I'm just repeating hype. So what is? A Nimitz-class carrier? A Seawolf submarine? The Large Hadron Collider?
All good candidates. Though if you count her missiles, an Ohio class moves up on the list too.
Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
Because without a substantial drop in cost of moving payloads to the ISS, such as might be provided by COTS, the ISS will be near useless.
Wrong.
Basically, I've heard of two huge obstacles that keep the ISS from being used.
Wrong on both counts.
[[snippage khallow dodging the fact he's wrong, again.]]
1) The non-profit news reporting character of the use is certainly an important factor. 2) The material directly affects the rights of millions of people. 3) Because of the nature of the work and the author's failure to make it available through other channels he had to use the whole thing. 4) The author has no intention of ever selling the work. Even if they did they would not get much for it.
1) News reporting does not allow breach of copyright. 2) Is utterly irrelevant to the test. 3) Cryptome is using the whole work, and thus fails the test. 4) Regardless of the profit motive, they are still distributing the entire work, and thus fail under 3.
Congress has the power to "promote the progress of...the useful arts" by granting copyrights. Protecting this work from distribution will not do that thus congress does not have the authority to grant a copyright on it.
[[Citation needed]]
Microsoft of course wants this document to remain secret. Ironically, to bring this matter to court they have to officially file for copyright which will include depositing a copy of it in the Library of Congress.
The requirement to deposit a copy with the LoC was dropped decades ago.
Whether it's 10 or 12 or 5, my point is still the same: it's simpler, cheaper and faster to build lots of semi-expendable vehicles than a few of "the most complex machine ever built".
What part of 'you pulled that out of your ass' is so hard to understand? It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables. (Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
If companies don't hestitate to pollute rivers, seas, air and pretty much everything that could very well kill us right now, why would they think twice before polluting something we, as a civilization, have no regard for?
Because in the same way they aren't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they aren't allowed to pollute space. In most spacefaring nations, if you can't meet the regulations regarding junk production (short version: you aren't allowed to produce any), you won't be granted a launch license. Companies that can't get launch licenses don't stay in business, so they adhere to the regulations.
Contrary to what hysterical articles and [mostly] ignorant [and hysterical] comments on Slashdot would have you believe, the vast majority of the junk in orbit is old. The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades. Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade.
Actually, a rocket motor and fuel is not required. A cheap, easy, and--I hate to use this word, but--"free" form of orbital propulsion exists. Electrodynamic tether propulsion.
Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass, then it's not free.
On top of which, the claim that it 'exists' is a shaky one, as while tethers are theoretically simple they've proven very hard to implement in practice. They're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time. Tethers also have significant drawbacks, the most notable of which is that they can't be used for attitude control.
That's an interesting claim since MPLM's have figured into ISS design and operations for nearly two decades, they've flown a whole raftload of them to ISS, ever since the post-Columbia return to flight they've been stuffing spare cargo space with spares to make up the loss of future MPLM flights, *and* they're planning on stuffing an MPLM to the gills with spares *and leaving attached to the station* after spending tens of millions of dollars to certify it to do so (as such capability was not designed in) before the Shuttle stops flying.
In short, you're full of bullshit.
With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
So what? There are going to be several cargo vehicles going up to the ISS whether the Shuttle flies or not. The Progress vehicle, ATV, HTV, and probably some unmanned COTS-based vehicles.
Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
And when you multiple those cost x2 to equate to a low fidelity simulation of the delivery capability of the Shuttle on one flight
No you don't. Because you don't need the capability of a Shuttle past some point this year or next. After 2011, you'll be doing the same work with a Soyuz capsule or a Shuttle flight.
Just one acronym - MPLM.
With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
There's a great deal of hype, hysteria, accusations, handwaving, and smokescreens - but no evidence.
Since you're dismissing out of hand the student reports (webcam lights turning on unexpectedly; a student being disciplined based on a photo taken from his webcam)
Of course I'm dismissing them, because their evidentiary value is questionable. Web cam lights turning on unexpectedly? I've seen chat software do that - so we have no way of knowing if they left chat software running or if it was because of surveillance. Student disciplined because of a photo taken from his webcam? How do we know the school didn't get the picture from the buddy he sent it to. Or from someone's parent who discovered the photo on another kids laptop.
I have to wonder what kind of "evidence" you think anyone can possibly provide.
I'll accept actual evidence when it appears, all we have to date is hearsay and assumptions. (And that you think a video of a webcam 'turning itself on' would constitute useful evidence, there really isn't any point in continuing this conversation. You're terminally clueless.)
Sorry, your "fixed that for you" is dead wrong. The evidence at this point strongly supports that the school district f****d up and is now (rightly) being called on the carpet for it.
Show me one single piece of evidence that school has engaged in spying on the students. No handwaving. No smokescreens. No assumptions.
Since, in the message I'm replying to you could not do so, I won't hold my breath.
We often see the media drumming up hysteria and panic when the facts do not back up such a reaction ("Summer of the Shark", anyone?), but this is not a case where that is necessary -- the basic facts of this case speak for themselves.
Except - the actual facts don't speak for themselves in the manner many believe they do. There is not one shred of evidence that the school engaged in surveillance of the students. None. Zip. Nada.
There's a great deal of hype, hysteria, accusations, handwaving, and smokescreens - but no evidence.
In other words, unless this whole thing is a blatant fabrication, this is absolutely something that we all ought to be outraged about and we should not stop being outraged until everyone responsible is behind bars.
If you're the kind of person who believes that hype and hysteria are reasonable substitutes for evidence, I can see how you could believe that. But I'm not such a person.
But in this case... the school really seems to be as stupid and as criminal as they first seemed, or MORE so. Every new piece of evidence is making it seem more and more like not only a screw-up, but that there should be some mass firings, if not jail time.
Given that there hasn't been a new piece of significant evidence come out since the release of the text of the lawsuit - hell, we haven't seen any evidence but the text of the lawsuit - that's an amazing claim.
I think you are confusing press releases, hype, and hysteria with evidence.
The absurd part is that a frigging Federal Judge had to step in and order them to stop. You know, ordered them to stop something that nobody has any evidence of them doing in the first damned place.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, among all the hype and hysteria - it is being overlooked that we have no way of knowing how the image came to be in the schools hands or the context it was taken under. None. Zip. Nada.
These redesigns have been decades in making, while the bridge is hanging by the thread on every major windstorm.
Indeed. Washington State has three major floating bridges (I90 and SR520 on Lake Washington, and SR104 on the Hood Canal*), the 520 bridge is the only one that hasn't done 'submarine duty' because of storms.** The Hood Canal bridge lost it's western half in a 1979 windstorm, and the I90 bridge lost a chunk out of the middle due to human error and heavy storms in 1990.
And the 520 bridge is old, worn out, and underdesigned.
* Incidentally, they're also the three largest floating bridges in the world.
** We get some evil windstorms around these parts.
Where are you getting the $1500M figure from? The marginal cost is on the same order as the Delta and the Ariane.
Further, they don't lift "about the same", at least not to ISS. The Falcon, Ariane, and Delta have roughly the same gross capacity as the Shuttle's net capacity - but the actual net capacity of the expendables is sharply reduced by the need to provide free flight capacity for their payloads.
Or, to put it in an automobile analogy;
The Shuttle is an eighteen wheeler that can drive directly to the loading dock and unload its full capacity.
The expendables are eighteen wheelers that are barred from entering the parking lot. You have to offload a single pickup truck (with the cargo in its bed) from the eighteen wheeler and drive it to the loading dock.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. That's why when I pointed out that COTS wasn't a cheap as you thought, you started a line of bullshit about other issues and now circle back to money again claiming I never discuss money.
If Cryptome was spot on for the other three categories, you'd have a point. But they aren't spot on for any of the tests. If you can't imagine a judge would take a suit seriously, you need to take your blinders off.
It's called pandering to their audience, or less generously bread and circuses.
Yes, and the pattern clearly demonstrates the public is demonstrably insane. They keep electing the same people to office and then expecting a different result.
You seem to forget the West was developing just fine without any gold rushes. (Which only happened in a very small number of places anyhow.)
What really opened up the West was two factors;
Not to mention that the majority of the people participating in the rush for gold promptly converted (sold) what gold they found into a government backed currency...
You must be new around these parts. Here on Slashdot we have a pretty low standard of evidence - when somebody is 'wronged' by big business or the government, their claims are assumed to be gospel truth. Actual evidence need not apply.
If the Shuttle had to be rebuilt after each launch, you'd have a point. But it isn't. You also should consider this - work done on the Shuttle after each launch is work preparing it for the next, and expendables need work to be prepared for launch too. (And that pre launch preparation includes building the expendable.)
They are also much less capable than the Shuttle - and when you stack up enough of them to match the capabilities of the Shuttle, the advantages of simplicity and low cost are lost.
If 'we' hadn't invested so much in a first generation machine and then expected it to perform as a nth generation machine, that might be true. Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle and mistaking the failings of the Shuttle as a single vehicle for being the failings of an entire class of vehicle.
All good candidates. Though if you count her missiles, an Ohio class moves up on the list too.
Wrong.
Wrong on both counts.
[[snippage khallow dodging the fact he's wrong, again.]]
1) News reporting does not allow breach of copyright.
2) Is utterly irrelevant to the test.
3) Cryptome is using the whole work, and thus fails the test.
4) Regardless of the profit motive, they are still distributing the entire work, and thus fail under 3.
[[Citation needed]]
The requirement to deposit a copy with the LoC was dropped decades ago.
What part of 'you pulled that out of your ass' is so hard to understand? It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables. (Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
I've been playing HSX for over a decade, I've been wondering when they'd find a way to make money off of it.
Which also means the fun of playing will soon depart as the gamblers, riggers, farmers, and spammers move in.
Because in the same way they aren't allowed to pollute the water or air or anything else anymore - they aren't allowed to pollute space. In most spacefaring nations, if you can't meet the regulations regarding junk production (short version: you aren't allowed to produce any), you won't be granted a launch license. Companies that can't get launch licenses don't stay in business, so they adhere to the regulations.
Contrary to what hysterical articles and [mostly] ignorant [and hysterical] comments on Slashdot would have you believe, the vast majority of the junk in orbit is old. The West has been working to reduce the amount of junk produced for decades. Russia has come onboard with this as well within the last decade.
And the vast majority of that is old junk - because most spacefaring nations have required for over a decade now that separation not produce junk.
Unless it takes up zero volume and zero mass, then it's not free.
On top of which, the claim that it 'exists' is a shaky one, as while tethers are theoretically simple they've proven very hard to implement in practice. They're a long way from being proven technology and ready for prime time. Tethers also have significant drawbacks, the most notable of which is that they can't be used for attitude control.
Yep, and Microsoft is in the clear too.
I'd be more impressed if the principle they were standing on wasn't "we are above the law because we believe ourselves to be above the law".
Yes, Microsoft's claim is legally valid. No, newsworthiness is not one of the fair use criteria, so Cryptome has no leg to stand on.
That's an interesting claim since MPLM's have figured into ISS design and operations for nearly two decades, they've flown a whole raftload of them to ISS, ever since the post-Columbia return to flight they've been stuffing spare cargo space with spares to make up the loss of future MPLM flights, *and* they're planning on stuffing an MPLM to the gills with spares *and leaving attached to the station* after spending tens of millions of dollars to certify it to do so (as such capability was not designed in) before the Shuttle stops flying.
In short, you're full of bullshit.
Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
Yes, you are correct, I've neglected to make my scenario a fantasy. Sorry, but I prefer facts.
(I.E. the number of launchers isn't all you've pulled out of your ass.)
Just one acronym - MPLM.
With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
Of course I'm dismissing them, because their evidentiary value is questionable. Web cam lights turning on unexpectedly? I've seen chat software do that - so we have no way of knowing if they left chat software running or if it was because of surveillance. Student disciplined because of a photo taken from his webcam? How do we know the school didn't get the picture from the buddy he sent it to. Or from someone's parent who discovered the photo on another kids laptop.
I'll accept actual evidence when it appears, all we have to date is hearsay and assumptions. (And that you think a video of a webcam 'turning itself on' would constitute useful evidence, there really isn't any point in continuing this conversation. You're terminally clueless.)
Show me one single piece of evidence that school has engaged in spying on the students. No handwaving. No smokescreens. No assumptions.
Since, in the message I'm replying to you could not do so, I won't hold my breath.
Except - the actual facts don't speak for themselves in the manner many believe they do. There is not one shred of evidence that the school engaged in surveillance of the students. None. Zip. Nada.
There's a great deal of hype, hysteria, accusations, handwaving, and smokescreens - but no evidence.
If you're the kind of person who believes that hype and hysteria are reasonable substitutes for evidence, I can see how you could believe that. But I'm not such a person.
Given that there hasn't been a new piece of significant evidence come out since the release of the text of the lawsuit - hell, we haven't seen any evidence but the text of the lawsuit - that's an amazing claim.
I think you are confusing press releases, hype, and hysteria with evidence.
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, among all the hype and hysteria - it is being overlooked that we have no way of knowing how the image came to be in the schools hands or the context it was taken under. None. Zip. Nada.
Indeed. Washington State has three major floating bridges (I90 and SR520 on Lake Washington, and SR104 on the Hood Canal*), the 520 bridge is the only one that hasn't done 'submarine duty' because of storms.** The Hood Canal bridge lost it's western half in a 1979 windstorm, and the I90 bridge lost a chunk out of the middle due to human error and heavy storms in 1990.
And the 520 bridge is old, worn out, and underdesigned.
* Incidentally, they're also the three largest floating bridges in the world.
** We get some evil windstorms around these parts.
Where are you getting the $1500M figure from? The marginal cost is on the same order as the Delta and the Ariane.
Further, they don't lift "about the same", at least not to ISS. The Falcon, Ariane, and Delta have roughly the same gross capacity as the Shuttle's net capacity - but the actual net capacity of the expendables is sharply reduced by the need to provide free flight capacity for their payloads.
Or, to put it in an automobile analogy;