He stated that if you think Windows is bad now, you should have seen Unix 20 years ago.
Yes, but we didn't have the internet then, at least not even close to the form today. Something that is not networked or on a small network is by nature more secure than something publically accessible world-wide. Plus you are just re-inforcing the argument -- Windows is 20 years behind the times in security.
Actually you can screw up your Unix/Linux machine faster as root... 'kill -9 -1'
Two problems with this: (1) it is a security discussion, not whether you can screw up your system, and (2) you can't easily accidently type 'kill -9 -1'. There's no 'kill -9 -1' button that you might accidently press. Windows is insecure because it does a lot of things automatically and without your knowledge. The most obvious security related one is running email attachments, which is the primary way that a virus spreads through Windows systems. You just can't do it like that in Linux.
No group is better/worse.
That's debatable, but not the point. It's a strawman argument. Nobody is questioning the quality or intention of programmers on either side. But Linux is clearly superior to Windows in terms of security using just about any metric or argument you can think of (that stands up to scutiny). Nobody is saying Microsoft is intentionally putting security holes in Windows. Nevertheless, they are there. And yes, there are security holes in Windows. But again, comparisons continually show that, overall, Linux is more secure.
No his point was if windows users used linux like they do windows then Linux wouldn't look so hot
...which is exactly synonymous with "if you use Linux insecurely" because Windows users use it insecurely. Not only does that meaning seem obvious, but both you and the original poster implicitely stated it. The statement "...like they do Windows..." means that people don't use Linux like they do Windows, and don't have the problems.
Have you seen the kernel exploit lists for the 2.4.xx series? I thought not.
Actually, I have seen a report on them, though I can't recall where, but so what? It's a comparison that is important, and when you do so, such as here or here, it is quite clear that Linux is more secure than Windows, independent of their popularity.
Hmm, you don't think that free access to music would be a "betterment of society at large"? Interesting. I'm not saying your wrong, that's definitely a matter of opinion.
You're missing the other side of the equation. What do you get back as a result of the contributions to T-mobile, screwdriver companies, and car manufacturer. If it means free cellphones, free tools, and free cars, then I'd be willing to pay them. It's a tradeoff. On some items you may be paying a small amount for things you never use, but you will also have access to free (or cheaper) things that you do use.
In the end, when deciding whether it is something you or I would wan, it's a matter of which way costs you more, which isn't easy to answer. Depending on how shared-cost is implemented, it can result in a better quality of life for everyone.
By the way, you probably are partially subsidizing T-Mobile and car manufacturers through some of the infrastructure paid for through your taxes.
Mr. Troll, you were never any good at debating, were you.
"Fact" #1 doesn't say anything about the relative security. Linux also continues to get better. It started better and has stayed better. Windows started from crap security and has gotten slightly better.
"Fact" #2 is (a) wrong, and (b) a non-argument. It is wrong because even as root it is not as easy to unintentionally screw things up as it is in Windows, which does so many things automatically without user knowledge so as to not "inconvenience" the user with "unimportant" details. It is certainly not less secure than Windows.
It is a non-argument because it basically says "If you use Linux insecurely, it will be insecure." It's like saying a car with a bunch of anti-theft devices is just as (or more) insecure as one with none because if you leave it running with the keys in it and doors open, someone could steal it.
"Fact" #3 has been tried and refuted many times. It is not secure because it is not as common. There's been a variety of analyses to prove this wrong. The obvious one is that Linux and Unix are used far more than Windows on servers, and yet server attacks are still more common on Windows.
At some point you have to check your "facts" before calling them facts.
And do you believe it's right for those who never use P2P to be forced into subsidizing your downloading?
That's the nature of any shared-cost system. It's the same with healthcare. If I never go to the doctor or hospital, should I be forced to subsidize some hypochondriac who drops in 10 times a week? What about roadways? If I don't drive, should I be forced to pay for the roadways for all those people that do? The list of this type can go on forever. The answer is typically that a shared-cost system is best overall, depending on how it is implemented. There are, of course, valid arguements for user-paid systems. It's an interesting debate, but seems to be a case-by-case argument.
That's a strawman argument. Most people don't see a problem with reasonable protection of one's creations for a limited time. The problem is the way the industry is run. Recording companies essentially provide artists with high-risk loans, but decide how they spend it and how much by selling them their own services of recording, marketing, and distribution. The artist has little control over where money goes or even over their own music, and in the end they don't even own their own creations. As a result of the companies' self-interests in spending on their own services, prices for recordings are artificially high and the artist doesn't get much of it.
When it comes down to the protection of creative works, it's the corporations that are interested in protecting their self-interests, not the artists interested in protecting their work.
In short, the system is screwed up. Both the artists and consumers are getting screwed and it's the recording companies that are doing the screwing to both. That has got to change.
That's one of the best laws the entertainment industry ever bought.
Except that the trade-off is that it made P2P downloading legal in Canada. I don't mind paying the levy as long as I can legally download from P2P. Distributing, on the other hand, is illegal.
Actually, that's quite ironic. Leeching is pretty much the only legal way to do it in Canada. You can download from P2P legally, but not distribute (share).
(If anybody is going to contest this, at least do a search first on previous Slashdot stories. This has been covered many times and even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that downloading is legal, but distributing is not.)
When I clicked the link I got a message saying "Welcome Slashdot visitor, you have been redirected to a lite version..." and so on, and this was before there were any comments on the article. Looks like they were heading off getting slashdotted beforehand.
Oh, and I also didn't see any screenshots anywhere. Could someone direct me to them.
Yes. I didn't say I liked the expense of filing a patent, I can just understand it. The amount of work that should go into reviewing a patent application is quite large. The reviewer has to understand the invention and claims, understand the "obviousness" of work in that field, and perform a detailed review of previous related work to ensure no prior art. If done with a lawyer, those costs are obvious (lawyers almost always make something expensive).
True, this isn't what happens now apparently because they are swamped (something like a max of 8 hours allowed per patent review). So, in theory, they shouldn't be so expensive because not as much work is put into each one.
Sure, there needs to be some penalty to discourage frivolous submissions. I have no problem with some sort of fees. But when the fees become so large they are prohibitive to legitimate appeals, the process begins to break down, as it already is. Plus there are better ways to discourage these things. For example, refunding the appeal fees if it is successful, or a multi-level review where appeals can be ruled to have merit of be frivolous at an early stage and charged accordingly (like court cases).
That sounds like how they make these CF cards in the first place, using their "patented stacking technology. Sounds like this idea is to just stack more of them, except that the case would be bigger than a CF card.
This is something that irks me. I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money. But if a bad patent is granted it should be easy to have it revoked, not $9000+. After all, we're essentially doing the job that the reviewer should have done in the first place.
Wait, maybe that's the plan. It's like software companies intentionally putting bugs in their programs, then charging you even more to fix them and with upgrades. The patent office gets paid to grant a patent, and then gets paid again to revoke it. It's either sloppy workmanship or intentional deceipt.
If a bad patent is granted, what can the "little" guy do? The options are to have it reviewed or to violate it and risk have it go to court. Either way, it's expensive.
I didn't mean the astronauts specifically, I meant NASA. I work with astronauts. They often tend to be "cowboys" and want to experience everything. Many (most?) of them would do multiple EVAs every flight if they could, even if it wasn't necessary. But astronauts do not own the shuttle, direct the priorities, or budget the space program. They cannot chose to risk things that are not theirs to risk. If a shuttle was lost on a Hubble mission, not only would the astonauts die (which may admittedly be their choice to risk), but the program would be set back years and may even be shut down, and the U.S. probably couldn't fulfill it's international obligations to the ISS.
NASA, who does the servicing, has decided at the program level that it is not worth it. The political will has also indirectly helped this decision. The new mandate is that the shuttles are to be used to finish obligations to the ISS, and that's it.
I did read the whole CAIB report. It is an excellent post mortem of what happened technicly. Unfortunately, like the Challenger report before it, it doesn't seem to have solved any of the structural problems at NASA.
You didn't read it all then. The tecnical post mortem was only a part of it. There are parts on everything including process, culture, organization, management, and political governance (Congress and President's Office). It does indeed harshly criticize the problems at NASA, well beyond the technical failures. It also has strong recommendations on how to fix this, particularly by looking a other organizations that manage high-risk programs like the Navy nuclear program.
What it doesn't do is blame it all on the "bureaucracy", and backs up the reasons with thorough analysis. Blaming, and fixing, only one component will result in more failures in the future. Things must change at all levels -- political, managerial, and technical.
The wavelengths in question don't GET to the ground,
...which falls into the rest of my email.
When HST dies, we (astronomers) face as much as a decade without access to observations taken in those wavebands
...which falls into the "is it worth the expense and danger" part of my email. Obviously, the people who use it would say yes. The people who have to service it would say no. It's an opinion (not factual) issue, and the debate has been decided.
My first thought was that you could make a pretty half-decent 3D imager out of it. The laser range finder and inclinometer alone would do the trick. The GPS adds an extra level of position measurement and the camera allows redundant range calculation via triangulation with the laser, making it even more accurate range measurement.
Of course, to image an object in 3D in any sort of reasonable time, your wrist will probably get a little sore.
I was searching for some papers on the Keck Observatory, and unfortunately I can't find many free ones online. However, here is an interesting story on how the Keck system outperforms Hubble in the infrared (and a few others are mentioned). An interesting point it makes is that Hubble is actually best in for visible light, which isn't opaque in the atmosphere. There's also this story, but it's a lot less informative.
1. The "free-flyer" isn't limited to only the shuttle. That's the nature of a free-flyer. It will be necessary/useful for shuttles/ISS/future spacecraft. Even if not, the retirement date of the shuttle fleet was only just announced (and not even approved yet). You don't cancel all ongoing projects immediately just from a political announcement from the president.
2. Columbia and Challenger happend primarily because of flawed designs. These flaws and problems were well known in both cases. Sloppy analysis and organization were another problem, as well as a series of misunderstandings. That poor managerial decisions were made is only the final step in a series of causes for these accidents. Blaming them purely on "bureaucrats" is ignorant of the facts.
Yes, NASA's got organizational problems. But that's not the whole story.
Please, check your facts before making sweeping statements about how HST isn't state-of-the-art.
Actually, I have been keeping up with state-of-the-art for quite some time, and I do know that HST isn't the best out there anymore for a lot of things. However, you are correct that I was wrong to make "sweeping statements", perhaps laziness on my part. There are still a few things Hubble is currently the best at, but much of its designed capabilities can now be done with ground telescopes, and in the near future with even better ground systems and next-generation space telescopes. Whether the remaining features are sufficient for the expense and danger is a matter for debate, one which Hubble proponents have apparently lost.
Wow, who exactly is this troll directed at? (Who is this "you" you are talking to? I'm couldn't put pressure on Congress if I wanted to, and I won't be on any hill next year. Well, maybe having a picnic or something.)
No, actually they weren't all problems 10 years ago. The eastern landing sites were not closed. There was no flight requirement for the inspection of the thermal protection system. And the safety requirements were not the same.
You seem to be suggesting that if things were done unsafely in the past, they should be done just as unsafely now. Have you even read the CAIB report? It clearly points out that NASA has been operating as if the shuttle is an operational vehicle, not the prototype that it really is. Now that NASA is finally taking safety as seriously as it should, it's getting criticized for it. I'd find it highly amusing if some people weren't so serious about it.
you think that there are ground based ultraviolet or infrared telescopes that are "even better than" hubble?
No, I don't think so, I know so. (Well, as long as I trust people, papers, and reports who are the actual experts in the field.) Adaptive optics have generated ground based designs that are several times better than Hubble in infrared. It's not hard to find journal papers on the subject, though I haven't seen them reported much in the press. I'm surprised you don't know about them.
This may not be true for all wavelengths that Hubble can see, but it is true for a large part of it.
Safety is indeed the primary reason. There are a variety of reasons:
The Hubble requires a due-east launch from KSC. The emergency landing sites in Africa are in the process of being shut down, so there'd be no emergency landing sites. (Setting them up again would be quite expensive.)
Return-to-flight rules for the shuttle include the ability to inspect the Thermal Protection System (tiles and RCC panels). As we speak the details of how this will be done are still being worked out. (I am personally involved in this process.) Right now plans include using both Canadarms (shuttle and ISS) to move a boom with a sensor package underneath the shuttle. Another task involves rolling the shuttle and viewing it from the ISS as it approaches. There is currently no inspection concept that would work for a Hubble mission, violating the CAIB requirements for flight. There are future plans for a free-flyer inspector, but that is years away. The ability to fix or patch damage would be even harder for Hubble than ISS.
Hubble is at approximately twice the height of the ISS. It is at the limit of where the shuttle can reach, so if there are problems they're essentially out of luck.
The shuttle can handle a fair number of failures on ISS trips, even including some engines. This is both because the ISS offers extra repair abilities and because of the lower orbit.
For large failures that can't be repair, the ISS offers a "lifeboat" for the crew who could survive there for quite some time until another shuttle or Russian spacecraft can retrieve them. On Hubble, they're screwed. Russians can't even reach them because of the orbital plane.
These are the jist of the safety reasons. But then come the technological and financial reasons. Why should Hubble be kept running? It may have been state-of-the art when it was launched, but there are now ground telescopes that are even better than it due to advances in adaptive reflector control. It's just not worth it anymore. It could probably survive and produce data for another 10 years, but at lower quality and much greater expense than we can get elsewhere.
Absolutely. Most people seem to misunderstand science, like the grandparent post. It's not about "theories" and whether they are "true" or not. It is all about modeling observable patterns, and improving the models.
Newton was not "wrong" as much as his model was incomplete. Einstein didn't prove Newton's model wrong, he improved upon it. (Case in point, we still use Newton's model for almost all practical applications.)
This may seem like semantics, but it is important to understand that it is intimately linked with logical reasoning. A fair number of people still seem to think that if there is something that a scientific theory cannot explain, the theory is wrong and must be thrown out. That is incorrect, the model is merely incomplete. Any new model must be able to at least explain all that the old one could, plus the observations that are inconsistent with the old model.
Another common misunderstanding is the use of the term "theory". In common usage people use it as an "unproven concept". In science, that more matches an hypothesis. "Theory" is the model by which it works. For instance, there is a such thing as "turbine theory". This doesn't mean that it's questionable whether turbines exist, the theory merely explains the principles by which the turbines work. And hypothesis are never proven right, they can only be shown to be consistent with observable phenomena. (If not, they are inconsistent and are discarded.)
Basic economics. Literally, they taught it at the very lowest level economics course at my school.
Unfortunately, you left out the explanation of the economics. I've been curious about this for some time. Let me give it a shot, and tell me if I'm wrong.
Basically, there are two ways to make profit. If you price your product cheap (small profit margin), you don't make as much per unit but you'll probably get more sales. If you price it expensive (large profit margin) you make more per unit but don't likely sell as many. The "crippled version" approach takes advantage of both by using two markets: inexpensive vs better quality/features.
The unintuitive part is how can they sell the same product, with extra work put in to cripple it, at a lower price. Why not just leave it uncrippled and sell for the low price? The answer is that the crippled version is partially subsidized by the expensive version. You'd lose all of the bigger profit from the expensive version (since there wouldn't be one), so you'd have to sell a lot more at the cheaper price to make up for it. Having high quality at a low price will probably give you more sales, but perhaps not enough to make up the difference, especially because they are two different markets with different customers.
Looking at it another way, it makes sense to have products for both markets (cheap vs quality). If you didn't use the "cripple" approach, you'd actually have to design and build two different products. Using the "cripple" approach, you only have to design and build one system. The extra cost to cripple it is far lower than the cost of designing and building a second product. This reasoning makes more sense when the design and labour costs are high relative to the cost of components (raw materials). Software is certainly a case where raw materials are cheap, most of the expense is in the development.
Is this generally correct? Or am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but we didn't have the internet then, at least not even close to the form today. Something that is not networked or on a small network is by nature more secure than something publically accessible world-wide. Plus you are just re-inforcing the argument -- Windows is 20 years behind the times in security.
Actually you can screw up your Unix/Linux machine faster as root... 'kill -9 -1'
Two problems with this: (1) it is a security discussion, not whether you can screw up your system, and (2) you can't easily accidently type 'kill -9 -1'. There's no 'kill -9 -1' button that you might accidently press. Windows is insecure because it does a lot of things automatically and without your knowledge. The most obvious security related one is running email attachments, which is the primary way that a virus spreads through Windows systems. You just can't do it like that in Linux.
No group is better/worse.
That's debatable, but not the point. It's a strawman argument. Nobody is questioning the quality or intention of programmers on either side. But Linux is clearly superior to Windows in terms of security using just about any metric or argument you can think of (that stands up to scutiny). Nobody is saying Microsoft is intentionally putting security holes in Windows. Nevertheless, they are there. And yes, there are security holes in Windows. But again, comparisons continually show that, overall, Linux is more secure.
...which is exactly synonymous with "if you use Linux insecurely" because Windows users use it insecurely. Not only does that meaning seem obvious, but both you and the original poster implicitely stated it. The statement "...like they do Windows..." means that people don't use Linux like they do Windows, and don't have the problems.
Have you seen the kernel exploit lists for the 2.4.xx series? I thought not.
Actually, I have seen a report on them, though I can't recall where, but so what? It's a comparison that is important, and when you do so, such as here or here, it is quite clear that Linux is more secure than Windows, independent of their popularity.
You're missing the other side of the equation. What do you get back as a result of the contributions to T-mobile, screwdriver companies, and car manufacturer. If it means free cellphones, free tools, and free cars, then I'd be willing to pay them. It's a tradeoff. On some items you may be paying a small amount for things you never use, but you will also have access to free (or cheaper) things that you do use.
In the end, when deciding whether it is something you or I would wan, it's a matter of which way costs you more, which isn't easy to answer. Depending on how shared-cost is implemented, it can result in a better quality of life for everyone.
By the way, you probably are partially subsidizing T-Mobile and car manufacturers through some of the infrastructure paid for through your taxes.
"Fact" #1 doesn't say anything about the relative security. Linux also continues to get better. It started better and has stayed better. Windows started from crap security and has gotten slightly better.
"Fact" #2 is (a) wrong, and (b) a non-argument. It is wrong because even as root it is not as easy to unintentionally screw things up as it is in Windows, which does so many things automatically without user knowledge so as to not "inconvenience" the user with "unimportant" details. It is certainly not less secure than Windows.
It is a non-argument because it basically says "If you use Linux insecurely, it will be insecure." It's like saying a car with a bunch of anti-theft devices is just as (or more) insecure as one with none because if you leave it running with the keys in it and doors open, someone could steal it.
"Fact" #3 has been tried and refuted many times. It is not secure because it is not as common. There's been a variety of analyses to prove this wrong. The obvious one is that Linux and Unix are used far more than Windows on servers, and yet server attacks are still more common on Windows.
At some point you have to check your "facts" before calling them facts.
That's the nature of any shared-cost system. It's the same with healthcare. If I never go to the doctor or hospital, should I be forced to subsidize some hypochondriac who drops in 10 times a week? What about roadways? If I don't drive, should I be forced to pay for the roadways for all those people that do? The list of this type can go on forever. The answer is typically that a shared-cost system is best overall, depending on how it is implemented. There are, of course, valid arguements for user-paid systems. It's an interesting debate, but seems to be a case-by-case argument.
When it comes down to the protection of creative works, it's the corporations that are interested in protecting their self-interests, not the artists interested in protecting their work.
In short, the system is screwed up. Both the artists and consumers are getting screwed and it's the recording companies that are doing the screwing to both. That has got to change.
Except that the trade-off is that it made P2P downloading legal in Canada. I don't mind paying the levy as long as I can legally download from P2P. Distributing, on the other hand, is illegal.
(If anybody is going to contest this, at least do a search first on previous Slashdot stories. This has been covered many times and even the Copyright Board of Canada has ruled that downloading is legal, but distributing is not.)
Oh, and I also didn't see any screenshots anywhere. Could someone direct me to them.
True, this isn't what happens now apparently because they are swamped (something like a max of 8 hours allowed per patent review). So, in theory, they shouldn't be so expensive because not as much work is put into each one.
The current method is the wrong way.
That sounds like how they make these CF cards in the first place, using their "patented stacking technology. Sounds like this idea is to just stack more of them, except that the case would be bigger than a CF card.
Wait, maybe that's the plan. It's like software companies intentionally putting bugs in their programs, then charging you even more to fix them and with upgrades. The patent office gets paid to grant a patent, and then gets paid again to revoke it. It's either sloppy workmanship or intentional deceipt.
If a bad patent is granted, what can the "little" guy do? The options are to have it reviewed or to violate it and risk have it go to court. Either way, it's expensive.
NASA, who does the servicing, has decided at the program level that it is not worth it. The political will has also indirectly helped this decision. The new mandate is that the shuttles are to be used to finish obligations to the ISS, and that's it.
You didn't read it all then. The tecnical post mortem was only a part of it. There are parts on everything including process, culture, organization, management, and political governance (Congress and President's Office). It does indeed harshly criticize the problems at NASA, well beyond the technical failures. It also has strong recommendations on how to fix this, particularly by looking a other organizations that manage high-risk programs like the Navy nuclear program.
What it doesn't do is blame it all on the "bureaucracy", and backs up the reasons with thorough analysis. Blaming, and fixing, only one component will result in more failures in the future. Things must change at all levels -- political, managerial, and technical.
...which falls into the rest of my email.
When HST dies, we (astronomers) face as much as a decade without access to observations taken in those wavebands
...which falls into the "is it worth the expense and danger" part of my email. Obviously, the people who use it would say yes. The people who have to service it would say no. It's an opinion (not factual) issue, and the debate has been decided.
Of course, to image an object in 3D in any sort of reasonable time, your wrist will probably get a little sore.
I was searching for some papers on the Keck Observatory, and unfortunately I can't find many free ones online. However, here is an interesting story on how the Keck system outperforms Hubble in the infrared (and a few others are mentioned). An interesting point it makes is that Hubble is actually best in for visible light, which isn't opaque in the atmosphere. There's also this story, but it's a lot less informative.
2. Columbia and Challenger happend primarily because of flawed designs. These flaws and problems were well known in both cases. Sloppy analysis and organization were another problem, as well as a series of misunderstandings. That poor managerial decisions were made is only the final step in a series of causes for these accidents. Blaming them purely on "bureaucrats" is ignorant of the facts.
Yes, NASA's got organizational problems. But that's not the whole story.
Actually, I have been keeping up with state-of-the-art for quite some time, and I do know that HST isn't the best out there anymore for a lot of things. However, you are correct that I was wrong to make "sweeping statements", perhaps laziness on my part. There are still a few things Hubble is currently the best at, but much of its designed capabilities can now be done with ground telescopes, and in the near future with even better ground systems and next-generation space telescopes. Whether the remaining features are sufficient for the expense and danger is a matter for debate, one which Hubble proponents have apparently lost.
No, actually they weren't all problems 10 years ago. The eastern landing sites were not closed. There was no flight requirement for the inspection of the thermal protection system. And the safety requirements were not the same.
You seem to be suggesting that if things were done unsafely in the past, they should be done just as unsafely now. Have you even read the CAIB report? It clearly points out that NASA has been operating as if the shuttle is an operational vehicle, not the prototype that it really is. Now that NASA is finally taking safety as seriously as it should, it's getting criticized for it. I'd find it highly amusing if some people weren't so serious about it.
No, I don't think so, I know so. (Well, as long as I trust people, papers, and reports who are the actual experts in the field.) Adaptive optics have generated ground based designs that are several times better than Hubble in infrared. It's not hard to find journal papers on the subject, though I haven't seen them reported much in the press. I'm surprised you don't know about them.
This may not be true for all wavelengths that Hubble can see, but it is true for a large part of it.
The Hubble requires a due-east launch from KSC. The emergency landing sites in Africa are in the process of being shut down, so there'd be no emergency landing sites. (Setting them up again would be quite expensive.)
Return-to-flight rules for the shuttle include the ability to inspect the Thermal Protection System (tiles and RCC panels). As we speak the details of how this will be done are still being worked out. (I am personally involved in this process.) Right now plans include using both Canadarms (shuttle and ISS) to move a boom with a sensor package underneath the shuttle. Another task involves rolling the shuttle and viewing it from the ISS as it approaches. There is currently no inspection concept that would work for a Hubble mission, violating the CAIB requirements for flight. There are future plans for a free-flyer inspector, but that is years away. The ability to fix or patch damage would be even harder for Hubble than ISS.
Hubble is at approximately twice the height of the ISS. It is at the limit of where the shuttle can reach, so if there are problems they're essentially out of luck.
The shuttle can handle a fair number of failures on ISS trips, even including some engines. This is both because the ISS offers extra repair abilities and because of the lower orbit.
For large failures that can't be repair, the ISS offers a "lifeboat" for the crew who could survive there for quite some time until another shuttle or Russian spacecraft can retrieve them. On Hubble, they're screwed. Russians can't even reach them because of the orbital plane.
These are the jist of the safety reasons. But then come the technological and financial reasons. Why should Hubble be kept running? It may have been state-of-the art when it was launched, but there are now ground telescopes that are even better than it due to advances in adaptive reflector control. It's just not worth it anymore. It could probably survive and produce data for another 10 years, but at lower quality and much greater expense than we can get elsewhere.
Newton was not "wrong" as much as his model was incomplete. Einstein didn't prove Newton's model wrong, he improved upon it. (Case in point, we still use Newton's model for almost all practical applications.)
This may seem like semantics, but it is important to understand that it is intimately linked with logical reasoning. A fair number of people still seem to think that if there is something that a scientific theory cannot explain, the theory is wrong and must be thrown out. That is incorrect, the model is merely incomplete. Any new model must be able to at least explain all that the old one could, plus the observations that are inconsistent with the old model.
Another common misunderstanding is the use of the term "theory". In common usage people use it as an "unproven concept". In science, that more matches an hypothesis. "Theory" is the model by which it works. For instance, there is a such thing as "turbine theory". This doesn't mean that it's questionable whether turbines exist, the theory merely explains the principles by which the turbines work. And hypothesis are never proven right, they can only be shown to be consistent with observable phenomena. (If not, they are inconsistent and are discarded.)
Unfortunately, you left out the explanation of the economics. I've been curious about this for some time. Let me give it a shot, and tell me if I'm wrong.
Basically, there are two ways to make profit. If you price your product cheap (small profit margin), you don't make as much per unit but you'll probably get more sales. If you price it expensive (large profit margin) you make more per unit but don't likely sell as many. The "crippled version" approach takes advantage of both by using two markets: inexpensive vs better quality/features.
The unintuitive part is how can they sell the same product, with extra work put in to cripple it, at a lower price. Why not just leave it uncrippled and sell for the low price? The answer is that the crippled version is partially subsidized by the expensive version. You'd lose all of the bigger profit from the expensive version (since there wouldn't be one), so you'd have to sell a lot more at the cheaper price to make up for it. Having high quality at a low price will probably give you more sales, but perhaps not enough to make up the difference, especially because they are two different markets with different customers.
Looking at it another way, it makes sense to have products for both markets (cheap vs quality). If you didn't use the "cripple" approach, you'd actually have to design and build two different products. Using the "cripple" approach, you only have to design and build one system. The extra cost to cripple it is far lower than the cost of designing and building a second product. This reasoning makes more sense when the design and labour costs are high relative to the cost of components (raw materials). Software is certainly a case where raw materials are cheap, most of the expense is in the development.
Is this generally correct? Or am I missing something?