If you added the defamatory information thinking it was factual due to widespread publication by multiple reliable sources, courts would have a difficult time trying to enforce libel in this situation. Again it depends on the quality of the source (a publication like the Daily Mirror is definitely less reputable than say the BBC... in part due to the fact checking that some news organizations perform when researching somebody or something) and your role as an author in spreading that information.
I agree that you might still be liable for defamation, but it would be a strong defense in your case. I would think even in Australia that a judge & jury would be able to accept your reasoning for publishing that sort of information if you added it in good faith, but the guy who initially published falsehoods while working for a supposedly reputable news organization would not. There have been scandals in the past from people who have engaged in similar smear campaigns by very prominent reporters who were publishing stuff later proven to be a complete fabrication and falsehood. One was even the "chief reporter" for a major television network in America.
I chuckle inside when I see somebody post in an article or webiste the phrase "Wikipedia says....." like is sometimes done for the Oxford English Dictionary.
It is amazing that in spite of the process, so much is accurate on Wikipedia and even far more up to date than any paper publication could ever be.
...the page there is interesting, in that it exists to diffuse the real problem that it is an MMORPG, where the highest level players can kill low level players with impunity. There's zero reason to start editing Wikipedia articles now, since a high level editor will just revert your changes until you submit, and then publish them as his own, further raising his status while destroying noobs...
I dare you to show an actual case of this happening where the "higher level" editor is not already under some sort of substantial ArbCom restriction or had it in the recent past.
Seriously.
No doubt some new contributors are discouraged from participation by overzealous editors, but abuse should be reported and it is usually dealt with rather harshly when pointed out.
This should also not be an excuse for not participating on Wikipedia with bona fide edits with new information. I would recommend avoiding popular articles (like George W. Bush or Barack Obama), as a new user mainly because of the churn rate on those articles, but irresponsible behavior by bullies is just that and can be dealt with. I wouldn't mind dealing with a specific example myself.
If those lies and false statements are made by what are assumed to be reliable sources (aka published in a major newspaper or in a trade journal/magazine) the liability would be upon the original author, not somebody who put that into a tertiary publication like Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Wikipedia author should be careful and try to second source sensational information (aka "Billy Graham was homosexual in spite of his homophobic rants") to confirm if it might be true or not. You should also be careful if it is from a dubious source... like a random tweet you can't confirm even is from the person who supposedly made the statement. A Wikipedia editor who uses such material deserves to have their ass landed in a court room to defend negative statements if that is the case.
I don't see it as having a chilling effect. Wikipedia is supposed to have every article with a neutral point of view. If some editor is insisting upon bias, this lawsuit... assuming it is successful... will embolden admins and ArbCom to administer harsher measures or suspend accounts when people consistently start introducing deliberate biases into articles which flout the principle of NPOV.
This is also one reason I don't mind editing Wikipedia with my real name, as I stand behind my words I write there. It is unfortunate that some people hide behind supposed anonymity for the sake of doing stuff that they otherwise wouldn't do if they were standing next to you.
Because of the rules (on Wikipedia) needed for notability, you would be hard-pressed to say that anybody who has a full article saying more than a sentence or two is anything other than a public figure. Sure, you could write up an article about your 2nd grade teacher and say "Mrs. Doubtfire is a stupid dumbass", but that article would also be deleted immediately because there would be no sources at all.
If you have multiple newspaper and magazine articles about you as a person, it is very likely you are a public figure by this definition even if the judge may not have heard of you before.
Consider the Apollo program. Apollo 11 landed on the moon. By the time Apollo 13 was scheduled to launch, everyone was so bored that they were having trouble getting air time on TV. They weren't news until something unexpected happened.
I doubt even for the Apollo 13 flight that having a scrubbed launch with the astronauts being pulled down from a Saturn V merely sitting on the launch pad would have received any air time.... or even an announcement by the PAO other than "we'll try again tomorrow".
It would be news if the Orbcomm satellites went off course and slammed into Miami or Orlando. That isn't what happened yesterday.
This isn't all that uncommon. Technical delays happen for everybody doing a launch. The only difference here is that SpaceX is open about each launch attempt and has a ravenous band of fans following each bolt and syllable being uttered by the launch control team.
I used to watch Shuttle launches, and trust me when I say that the stuff SpaceX is going through here is very routine and normal. ULA faces the same problems with its launches, including multiple scrubs even for long standing vehicles that have been launched hundreds of times.
It even happens for the Chinese, but they don't announce a launch until after it happens. That makes them look awesome instead of bumbling fools.
BTW, SpaceX does check the vehicle for technical glitches before launch. Why do you think it was scrubbed in the first place rather than blowing up spectacularly about 40 feet above the launch pad?
You kind of missed that whole treaties and alliances bit, didn't you;).
No, I didn't miss that. What you missed is that it is already under the control of the U.S. government, which makes such international treaties a total joke that can be thrown out the door at any time by the USA. It is up to other countries to try and negotiate through diplomatic pressure or however else to get the USA to give it up.
This includes the.mil and.gov stuff. Then again they could throw the internet protocols and standards out the window and start their own damn network too. Good luck with that.
Each country could.... which is sort of the reason for the country TLD code. There is even a ".us" domain for American addresses (not that it is used much, but it does exist). I suppose a country could have its DNS servers ignore.com or.mil TLD codes in favor of stuff done in its own borders, but then it wouldn't really be the internet either, would it? One way to accomplish that is to redirect.com to.com.us as is sometimes done with some other countries like.co.uk as the top level domain for UK-based businesses. It would make things confusing if it was unevenly implemented, but that is sort of the nature of the internet in the first place.
Besides, this whole thing isn't about domain names, but rather the allocation of IPv4 addresses and the big issue of IPv6 allocation. The USA got the lion share of IPV4 addresses because many American companies got them first, and back when nobody thought that there could possibly be more than four billion computers and devices on the internet, they were a whole lot more free with the allocation of the address space (like the local university where I live has a full Class-B IP block allocation... although I'm sure they've "given" a few Class-C blocks back to ICANN over the years). They don't even refer to them as Class-A, B, or C blocks any more either but rather in how many bits are in the "header", as in a/16 or a/24 block. IPv6 does the same thing.
If IP address allocation was done on a country by country basis, it would be pure confusion when computers try to connect to each other (also confusion if countries each implemented DNS records differently, but I digress on that point). The crazy thing is that the U.S. government was originally responsible for allocating both the IP addresses as well as domain names, which is how ICANN inherited the job.... as an organ of the U.S. federal government and later a California-based non-profit corporation. Other countries could invent their own version of the internet, but they wouldn't be participating on this particular network you are currently using to read this message.
If your country (presumably not the USA) wants to change that relationship, have its diplomats and political leaders negotiate something different with the U.S. government. It really is that simple, and I guess what this guy wants to do in this case too. America could give up the control it currently has in this regard, but when have you ever heard of a politician giving up political control over somebody else?
ICANN had the chance to really address this issue when they had the at-large members of its governing board. It would have had representatives from every continent and major group of people from the Earth, but now it is run by major corporations and a joke of an organization.
Just look up how Karl Auerbach was treated by ICANN (when he was a legal member of the board asking basic questions about its governance and finances), where he had to sue in state courts of California simply to get basic information like when meetings were being held and how its finances were being spent.
The difference with later public offerings is that you can show a set market price value for each share and demonstrate exactly how much the additional shares are going to dilute the value of existing shares, not to mention that what is brought in from the offering is cash... presumably to make capital purchases that increase the value of the company more than the amount actually being raised (from a longer-term perspective).
An IPO is by definition something where the offering price is just a guess at what the market price presumably should be at. Google did an interesting approach to set that price, Facebook was oversold, but typically most people doing an IPO try to set the price a little bit below market value on the assumption that early investors might try to make some money on the initial early market moves that often (but not always) go up on the first few days of trading.
Solar power will be important as it takes time to set up the nuclear reactor and they'll need power away from the base
Not that I disagree with the general need for solar power, but there already is a nuclear reactor on Mars (in the form of an RTG on board the MSL) producing electricity. I don't think it is overly complicated to try to do that again, perhaps even on a slightly larger scale in the future. Four of the Apollo missions also sent up RTGs that are still generating power right now.
Not all nuclear power plants need to be set up like Springfield's nor operated by somebody like Homer Simpson.
Name the mission that "goes up in flames" with the engine, then you can complain. Lockheed-Martin had engines made by American companies and even told Congress that even the Russian engines they purchased could be made in America (as recently as February when they made that pronouncement again under oath at a congressional hearing). This whole thing is a problem of their own making, and I hardly loose sleep or cry that they made themselves so vulnerable because of foreign outsourcing of their product line. All in the name of trying to make a buck or two extra.
The Falcon Heavy has zero metric tons of down mass capability. I'm not disputing that other vehicles can put up more tonnage. The Dragon spacecraft does have the down mass capability of about two metric tons... of pressurized cargo that must fit through the docking/berthing hatch. I suppose that is a start though.
Again I repeat who is planning on building a vehicle that can haul a 15-20 ton satellite (or other piece of bulky equipment or even hunk of an asteroid) down from LEO to the Earth's surface, and has even announced that is something they would even plan on building off in some very distant future? Stretching it perhaps is the MCT vehicle (whatever the hell that actually is.... it is really just a name at the moment).
The Buran also had down mass capability, but that is simply not something flying either and Roscosmos is definitely not planning on building a replacement for that vehicle either, nor are the Chinese nor the Indians for that matter. Please, name somebody, anybody, who is planning on some time in the very distant future (like NASA with its very long-term planning for crewed exploration of Mars that we hope might actually happen and is continually 30 years or more away). I repeat, nobody who is doing this sort of extremely long term planning in any space faring nation or even private companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin are even talking about the down mass capabilities of the Space Shuttle as any future product or spacecraft design. Period.
There are many ways to improve satellite data service compared to what Iridium is doing. You are comparing 1980's technology to stuff in the 21st Century, where I think there has been some improvements in terms of the quality of computer equipment being used. Bandwidth has definitely increased, as has satellite to ground or the reverse in terms of radio technology being employed. That by itself can make the service considerably more affordable.
Iridium was a good first try, but it is the first generation of constellation satellites. Somebody had to be first if the concept was going to be proven as a viable system, so what Google is proposing is the next generation system. Iridium is upgrading their whole network as well BTW.
Considering that the DOD is the largest customer for Iridium, I doubt that Sigint stuff would get much of a take for the U.S. government (except for internal investigations). Do you really think they are at that level of paranoia?
The pad is leased to SpaceX for their exclusive use. How is that different from leasing a gate at a major airport? You are pretty limited on places you can build a space port anyway, which IMHO is one of the things governments tend to do pretty well.
The CST-100 (the spacecraft being developed by Boeing and also in the commercial crew competition that SpaceX is involved with) was planned on being launched on an Atlas V using the Russian RD-180 engines. That was supposed to dock with the ISS at some point in the future. They might be using a Delta IV instead, but that move is also much more expensive and one of the reasons why anybody is even discussing finding a replacement engine to the RD-180 as the cost savings really is that significant. Payloads don't switch from one vehicle to another all that easily.
It was the private sector back then too for a lot of stuff - for example Grumman built the lander.
.... on a cost-plus contract where the government took any financial risk in developing the vehicle, and whose only customer was the U.S. government.
That is sort of the difference here, where SpaceX is taking a financial risk themselves (in spite of some subsidies) as any cost-overruns are paid by SpaceX & its shareholders and not the taxpayer. Furthermore, SpaceX is definitely trying to sell this vehicle to customers other than the U.S. Government. Bigelow Aerospace happens to be one of their early customers and they also plan on selling rides to Space Adventures too.
If you are going to make a proper analogy, you might have suggested that the Apollo Guidance Computer used hand-soldered discrete transistors for its CPU, but that isn't even true (even though that was the case for the Gemini spacecraft..... Mercury even used vacuum tubes for some of its guidance systems). The AGC did employ some of the very first integrated circuits in its design, but those were simple gate chips like the 7200 series and the engineers did consider discrete transistors as the difference wasn't all that much both in terms of weight as well as board complexity. The power system for Apollo was instead a fuel cell.... a very new technology at the time and quite remarkable that it worked as well as it did.
At least try to get it accurate. I do get what you are trying to suggest here though, and it is amazing at how much progress things like guidance computers have made. At least the pilots of the Dragon capsule don't need to try and interpret a 7-segment LED display full of numbers and memorize error codes to simply know what the guidance computer is complaining about.
I don't recall Apollo capsules carrying seven or being able to land propulsively exactly where you want them to.
There was a proposed "Apollo II" vehicle that was to carry seven passengers. Had the Saturn V been continued as a spacecraft instead of dumping that vehicle + the Apollo spacecraft system and to push that through 40 years of incremental engineering development cycles, seven passengers in Apollo would certainly seem reasonable. NASA and the American effort for crewed spaceflight simply didn't go that route.
The propulsive landing system is something new to Dragon though. Soyuz just used some very excellent shock absorbers + parachute and Apollo simply relied upon landing in the ocean to cushion the final velocity that the parachute system couldn't stop.
Slashdot Mirror
If you added the defamatory information thinking it was factual due to widespread publication by multiple reliable sources, courts would have a difficult time trying to enforce libel in this situation. Again it depends on the quality of the source (a publication like the Daily Mirror is definitely less reputable than say the BBC... in part due to the fact checking that some news organizations perform when researching somebody or something) and your role as an author in spreading that information.
I agree that you might still be liable for defamation, but it would be a strong defense in your case. I would think even in Australia that a judge & jury would be able to accept your reasoning for publishing that sort of information if you added it in good faith, but the guy who initially published falsehoods while working for a supposedly reputable news organization would not. There have been scandals in the past from people who have engaged in similar smear campaigns by very prominent reporters who were publishing stuff later proven to be a complete fabrication and falsehood. One was even the "chief reporter" for a major television network in America.
I chuckle inside when I see somebody post in an article or webiste the phrase "Wikipedia says....." like is sometimes done for the Oxford English Dictionary.
It is amazing that in spite of the process, so much is accurate on Wikipedia and even far more up to date than any paper publication could ever be.
Well, duh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
I dare you to show an actual case of this happening where the "higher level" editor is not already under some sort of substantial ArbCom restriction or had it in the recent past.
Seriously.
No doubt some new contributors are discouraged from participation by overzealous editors, but abuse should be reported and it is usually dealt with rather harshly when pointed out.
This should also not be an excuse for not participating on Wikipedia with bona fide edits with new information. I would recommend avoiding popular articles (like George W. Bush or Barack Obama), as a new user mainly because of the churn rate on those articles, but irresponsible behavior by bullies is just that and can be dealt with. I wouldn't mind dealing with a specific example myself.
If those lies and false statements are made by what are assumed to be reliable sources (aka published in a major newspaper or in a trade journal/magazine) the liability would be upon the original author, not somebody who put that into a tertiary publication like Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Wikipedia author should be careful and try to second source sensational information (aka "Billy Graham was homosexual in spite of his homophobic rants") to confirm if it might be true or not. You should also be careful if it is from a dubious source... like a random tweet you can't confirm even is from the person who supposedly made the statement. A Wikipedia editor who uses such material deserves to have their ass landed in a court room to defend negative statements if that is the case.
I don't see it as having a chilling effect. Wikipedia is supposed to have every article with a neutral point of view. If some editor is insisting upon bias, this lawsuit... assuming it is successful... will embolden admins and ArbCom to administer harsher measures or suspend accounts when people consistently start introducing deliberate biases into articles which flout the principle of NPOV.
This is also one reason I don't mind editing Wikipedia with my real name, as I stand behind my words I write there. It is unfortunate that some people hide behind supposed anonymity for the sake of doing stuff that they otherwise wouldn't do if they were standing next to you.
Because of the rules (on Wikipedia) needed for notability, you would be hard-pressed to say that anybody who has a full article saying more than a sentence or two is anything other than a public figure. Sure, you could write up an article about your 2nd grade teacher and say "Mrs. Doubtfire is a stupid dumbass", but that article would also be deleted immediately because there would be no sources at all.
If you have multiple newspaper and magazine articles about you as a person, it is very likely you are a public figure by this definition even if the judge may not have heard of you before.
Consider the Apollo program. Apollo 11 landed on the moon. By the time Apollo 13 was scheduled to launch, everyone was so bored that they were having trouble getting air time on TV. They weren't news until something unexpected happened.
I doubt even for the Apollo 13 flight that having a scrubbed launch with the astronauts being pulled down from a Saturn V merely sitting on the launch pad would have received any air time.... or even an announcement by the PAO other than "we'll try again tomorrow".
It would be news if the Orbcomm satellites went off course and slammed into Miami or Orlando. That isn't what happened yesterday.
This isn't all that uncommon. Technical delays happen for everybody doing a launch. The only difference here is that SpaceX is open about each launch attempt and has a ravenous band of fans following each bolt and syllable being uttered by the launch control team.
I used to watch Shuttle launches, and trust me when I say that the stuff SpaceX is going through here is very routine and normal. ULA faces the same problems with its launches, including multiple scrubs even for long standing vehicles that have been launched hundreds of times.
It even happens for the Chinese, but they don't announce a launch until after it happens. That makes them look awesome instead of bumbling fools.
BTW, SpaceX does check the vehicle for technical glitches before launch. Why do you think it was scrubbed in the first place rather than blowing up spectacularly about 40 feet above the launch pad?
Launches are news. A scrubbed launch isn't. I consider that to be a difference.
It is almost like reporting that a thunderstorm was spotted in Florida today. Is that news?
You kind of missed that whole treaties and alliances bit, didn't you ;).
No, I didn't miss that. What you missed is that it is already under the control of the U.S. government, which makes such international treaties a total joke that can be thrown out the door at any time by the USA. It is up to other countries to try and negotiate through diplomatic pressure or however else to get the USA to give it up.
This includes the .mil and .gov stuff. Then again they could throw the internet protocols and standards out the window and start their own damn network too. Good luck with that.
Each country could.... which is sort of the reason for the country TLD code. There is even a ".us" domain for American addresses (not that it is used much, but it does exist). I suppose a country could have its DNS servers ignore .com or .mil TLD codes in favor of stuff done in its own borders, but then it wouldn't really be the internet either, would it? One way to accomplish that is to redirect .com to .com.us as is sometimes done with some other countries like .co.uk as the top level domain for UK-based businesses. It would make things confusing if it was unevenly implemented, but that is sort of the nature of the internet in the first place.
Besides, this whole thing isn't about domain names, but rather the allocation of IPv4 addresses and the big issue of IPv6 allocation. The USA got the lion share of IPV4 addresses because many American companies got them first, and back when nobody thought that there could possibly be more than four billion computers and devices on the internet, they were a whole lot more free with the allocation of the address space (like the local university where I live has a full Class-B IP block allocation... although I'm sure they've "given" a few Class-C blocks back to ICANN over the years). They don't even refer to them as Class-A, B, or C blocks any more either but rather in how many bits are in the "header", as in a /16 or a /24 block. IPv6 does the same thing.
If IP address allocation was done on a country by country basis, it would be pure confusion when computers try to connect to each other (also confusion if countries each implemented DNS records differently, but I digress on that point). The crazy thing is that the U.S. government was originally responsible for allocating both the IP addresses as well as domain names, which is how ICANN inherited the job.... as an organ of the U.S. federal government and later a California-based non-profit corporation. Other countries could invent their own version of the internet, but they wouldn't be participating on this particular network you are currently using to read this message.
If your country (presumably not the USA) wants to change that relationship, have its diplomats and political leaders negotiate something different with the U.S. government. It really is that simple, and I guess what this guy wants to do in this case too. America could give up the control it currently has in this regard, but when have you ever heard of a politician giving up political control over somebody else?
ICANN had the chance to really address this issue when they had the at-large members of its governing board. It would have had representatives from every continent and major group of people from the Earth, but now it is run by major corporations and a joke of an organization.
Just look up how Karl Auerbach was treated by ICANN (when he was a legal member of the board asking basic questions about its governance and finances), where he had to sue in state courts of California simply to get basic information like when meetings were being held and how its finances were being spent.
The difference with later public offerings is that you can show a set market price value for each share and demonstrate exactly how much the additional shares are going to dilute the value of existing shares, not to mention that what is brought in from the offering is cash... presumably to make capital purchases that increase the value of the company more than the amount actually being raised (from a longer-term perspective).
An IPO is by definition something where the offering price is just a guess at what the market price presumably should be at. Google did an interesting approach to set that price, Facebook was oversold, but typically most people doing an IPO try to set the price a little bit below market value on the assumption that early investors might try to make some money on the initial early market moves that often (but not always) go up on the first few days of trading.
Solar power will be important as it takes time to set up the nuclear reactor and they'll need power away from the base
Not that I disagree with the general need for solar power, but there already is a nuclear reactor on Mars (in the form of an RTG on board the MSL) producing electricity. I don't think it is overly complicated to try to do that again, perhaps even on a slightly larger scale in the future. Four of the Apollo missions also sent up RTGs that are still generating power right now.
Not all nuclear power plants need to be set up like Springfield's nor operated by somebody like Homer Simpson.
You are not the only one. Elon Musk has said that he wants to die on Mars.
More specifically, he wants to retire on Mars and live there for awhile. Dying on Mars is comparatively easy in contrast.
Name the mission that "goes up in flames" with the engine, then you can complain. Lockheed-Martin had engines made by American companies and even told Congress that even the Russian engines they purchased could be made in America (as recently as February when they made that pronouncement again under oath at a congressional hearing). This whole thing is a problem of their own making, and I hardly loose sleep or cry that they made themselves so vulnerable because of foreign outsourcing of their product line. All in the name of trying to make a buck or two extra.
The Falcon Heavy has zero metric tons of down mass capability. I'm not disputing that other vehicles can put up more tonnage. The Dragon spacecraft does have the down mass capability of about two metric tons... of pressurized cargo that must fit through the docking/berthing hatch. I suppose that is a start though.
Again I repeat who is planning on building a vehicle that can haul a 15-20 ton satellite (or other piece of bulky equipment or even hunk of an asteroid) down from LEO to the Earth's surface, and has even announced that is something they would even plan on building off in some very distant future? Stretching it perhaps is the MCT vehicle (whatever the hell that actually is.... it is really just a name at the moment).
The Buran also had down mass capability, but that is simply not something flying either and Roscosmos is definitely not planning on building a replacement for that vehicle either, nor are the Chinese nor the Indians for that matter. Please, name somebody, anybody, who is planning on some time in the very distant future (like NASA with its very long-term planning for crewed exploration of Mars that we hope might actually happen and is continually 30 years or more away). I repeat, nobody who is doing this sort of extremely long term planning in any space faring nation or even private companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin are even talking about the down mass capabilities of the Space Shuttle as any future product or spacecraft design. Period.
There are many ways to improve satellite data service compared to what Iridium is doing. You are comparing 1980's technology to stuff in the 21st Century, where I think there has been some improvements in terms of the quality of computer equipment being used. Bandwidth has definitely increased, as has satellite to ground or the reverse in terms of radio technology being employed. That by itself can make the service considerably more affordable.
Iridium was a good first try, but it is the first generation of constellation satellites. Somebody had to be first if the concept was going to be proven as a viable system, so what Google is proposing is the next generation system. Iridium is upgrading their whole network as well BTW.
Considering that the DOD is the largest customer for Iridium, I doubt that Sigint stuff would get much of a take for the U.S. government (except for internal investigations). Do you really think they are at that level of paranoia?
The pad is leased to SpaceX for their exclusive use. How is that different from leasing a gate at a major airport? You are pretty limited on places you can build a space port anyway, which IMHO is one of the things governments tend to do pretty well.
The CST-100 (the spacecraft being developed by Boeing and also in the commercial crew competition that SpaceX is involved with) was planned on being launched on an Atlas V using the Russian RD-180 engines. That was supposed to dock with the ISS at some point in the future. They might be using a Delta IV instead, but that move is also much more expensive and one of the reasons why anybody is even discussing finding a replacement engine to the RD-180 as the cost savings really is that significant. Payloads don't switch from one vehicle to another all that easily.
That payload switch might still happen though.
It was the private sector back then too for a lot of stuff - for example Grumman built the lander.
.... on a cost-plus contract where the government took any financial risk in developing the vehicle, and whose only customer was the U.S. government.
That is sort of the difference here, where SpaceX is taking a financial risk themselves (in spite of some subsidies) as any cost-overruns are paid by SpaceX & its shareholders and not the taxpayer. Furthermore, SpaceX is definitely trying to sell this vehicle to customers other than the U.S. Government. Bigelow Aerospace happens to be one of their early customers and they also plan on selling rides to Space Adventures too.
If you are going to make a proper analogy, you might have suggested that the Apollo Guidance Computer used hand-soldered discrete transistors for its CPU, but that isn't even true (even though that was the case for the Gemini spacecraft..... Mercury even used vacuum tubes for some of its guidance systems). The AGC did employ some of the very first integrated circuits in its design, but those were simple gate chips like the 7200 series and the engineers did consider discrete transistors as the difference wasn't all that much both in terms of weight as well as board complexity. The power system for Apollo was instead a fuel cell.... a very new technology at the time and quite remarkable that it worked as well as it did.
At least try to get it accurate. I do get what you are trying to suggest here though, and it is amazing at how much progress things like guidance computers have made. At least the pilots of the Dragon capsule don't need to try and interpret a 7-segment LED display full of numbers and memorize error codes to simply know what the guidance computer is complaining about.
I don't recall Apollo capsules carrying seven or being able to land propulsively exactly where you want them to.
There was a proposed "Apollo II" vehicle that was to carry seven passengers. Had the Saturn V been continued as a spacecraft instead of dumping that vehicle + the Apollo spacecraft system and to push that through 40 years of incremental engineering development cycles, seven passengers in Apollo would certainly seem reasonable. NASA and the American effort for crewed spaceflight simply didn't go that route.
The propulsive landing system is something new to Dragon though. Soyuz just used some very excellent shock absorbers + parachute and Apollo simply relied upon landing in the ocean to cushion the final velocity that the parachute system couldn't stop.