I'm not disagreeing with you, your points are very interesting, and I hope some mod points come your way. But you just managed to provide some justification for why things like the ISS and Shuttle are flawed, and you aren't managing NASA. So why couldn't he have spent 5 minutes doing the same in the article?
Engineers were criticizing the shuttle as it was being built and pointing out the flaws in it's design before it was built. The problems that the shuttle has have all been predicted. One doesn't need a operational test to know that if I fling my self off a 100 story building I will end up as a crumpled dead smear on the ground.
There's flaws in every design. There's flaws in the 747, prominent buildings, nuclear reactors, everything. But just because the Shuttle has flaws doesn't mean it couldn't have acheived some success (which it did) and been useful (which it was). Space was, and still is, an experimental area, and it's hard to know what will and will not have a place until we give it a go. There's plenty of flaws in the space elevator too, but until we build one and really use it we will never really know how significant those flaws are in the context of it's overall usefulness. I mean, how often have you seen the ads for a movie, and heard stuff from you friends that made you think it would really suck, and then gone and seen the movie and liked it, and that the bad parts you heard about weren't that annoying? I have, but then my friends have bad taste in movies.
What would be the point of outlining an entire plan of "What would I have done if I was king of NASA?" I prefer that he outline what he will do NOW. Which if you note the beginnings of this was announced last week.
Who would you rather buy a car from?
Salesman 1: You should ditch your current moped for this SUV. The moped was a huge mistake for you. You've wasted you money. Any car I would have bought would have been green for starters.
Salesman 2: You should ditch your current moped for this SUV. The moped was a huge mistake for you, as it has the following flaws... . Based on your lifestyle, which includes lots of off road driving, and carry large objects and numbers of people an SUV would have been a much better choice, because it can carry heavy things and lots of people, and go offroad, whilst a moped can't. So the SUV would be a better choice because...
I think in order for NASA to come up with a good program this time around, it needs to spend some time discussing what could have been done better the first go around. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Uh, then how come I don't suffocate when I go snorkelling? I mean, I'm under water, my skin is covered by fluid, and the only air I get is down the pipe to my lungs. And since I highly doubt my skin is sophisticated enough to crack water into it's base elements of hydrogen and oxygen, I believe you may be mistaken.
He offers plenty of criticism of the current plan, but the article lacks one important detail: - Exactly what would Mr Smartypants have had us do with the money?
I mean, he states the shuttle was "deeply flawed". What would he have built? Kept shooting Apollo capsules up forever more? Built an Apollo 2? And if the ISS isn't in a good orbit, what orbit would he prefer? And additionally, how were we supposed to know the Shuttle wasn't a solid idea, until we had actually built a few and tested them operationally?
It seems to me he's just trying to ride the wave of popular opinion that says the shuttle must go and the ISS isn't interesting. It's plenty easy to offer criticism, but it's a bit harder to come up with an viable, alternative solutions. If he's going to be so critical as to call the last 30 years a mistake, than it's only fair he steps up to the plate and specifically outline what he would have done better.
Actually, most of the time there was neither. eg. Armour that was not invincible, and a weapon that was not unstoppable. The solution was, and still is to use combinations.
Example: My firewall will not stop viruses, but will stop most other intrusion attempts. Similarly, my antivirus program does not stop people portscanning my box, but can stop viruses reliably. A computer with one but not the other is vulnerable, a computer using both working together is far more secure. Similarly, most nations send in the troops with an assortment of weapons and tools, because they are more effective across a variety of situations than one weapon ever will be.
There will not be a protection mechanism for Bittorrent that cannot be broken, forged or otherwise avoided. Likewise, nothing the RIAA can throw at Bittorrent cannot be countered in some fashion. By using combinations of protection mechanisms, Bittorrent can be protected to a degree that attacks can be tolerated. The RIAA gets this, that's why they try many tactics, such as torrent poisoning, DRM, the DMCA, sending goons to street vendors, etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just tweaking your points a bit:) .
Yes, the satellite itself retains the same volume, but junk comes from lots of other places. The rocket boosters that send it up shed bolts and various other pieces of foam, paint and metal on their way up and during stage seperation, and the satellite itself, it it gets hit by something, could also shed some debris. Furthermore, the satellite itself splits into 4 pieces when up there, so each one is whizzing around, and has to be tracked individually.
The problem isn't so much about mass, it's about all the individual pieces, because even something as small as a bolt is travelling fast enough to cause major damage. 1 ton of solid metal is far better than 1 ton of loose debris, because it's easier to track and easier to avoid than a cloud of junk.
And by funky generators, you mean like this shake torch, right? Cause that would kick ass. I mean, it's a portable gaming device, of course it's going to move, might as well get some current out of it.
What sort of effect does the new screen have on battery usage? Has battery capacity been increased to compensate?
It can be frustrating when new energy-draining features are added without a corresponding increase in power supply. I now a lot of this is due to battery chemistry restrictions, but isn't the Gameboy battery system rather old? Perhaps some new advances have come out that Nintendo could use to offset the extra drain.
FFS, I know I don't have the talent to do it, and good on them if they have the knowledge to do so. I'm happy for them, really. But can't they send up something useful instead of wasting resources? My objection is not to sending up stuff, it's sending up stuff that does not do useful science, and just adds to an increasingly serious problem. Most of this project IMHO does not perform useful science (the reindeer thing could be useful if scaled up, but low res images of Earth that we already have?). If they're going to design and send up a satellite, let it do something really cool (like track more than ONE FRICKIN REINDEER). In any case, why not have just one satellite, instead of 4? That would be much easier to track and prevent collisions.
I mean, does sending up 4 satellities for every, say, 5 universities sound like a good idea to you? Does sending up 1 satellite for each reindeer in Norway sound like a good idea?
No, you wouldn't be right. Because I'M NOT AMERICAN (OMG!). I don't think there should be a governing body, I just think that people and space agencies together should decide to limit what goes up.
And you know what, nobody has ever been killed by exploding the sun before, right? So why don't we just go and do that?
Oh, and check out the nice 500 pound piece of junk in this article that almost hit some guy's house in Texas, as an example of something that was almost damaged. In any case, I know it's unlikely junk will kill people down here, but debris in orbit could be a serious problem to satellites and other space exploration.
I know what you mean, I'd hate it if I was involved in the project and it got cancelled. But IMHO the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'd drawn it here. I mean, how many other university satellites are going to be put up? We can't very well refuse them now that this is going.
I wouldn't mind anywhere near as much if their project was doing something useful. It doesn't have to be development of a warp engine or anything. The reindeer and fishing boat thing could be a decent project if they expanded the scale. But taking pictures with an extremely low res camera is not useful, it's a waste of time.
A deorbit plan would solve some of the junk problem, but it doesn't stop all the tiny (and really dangerous) pieces of junk that get sent up with every launch. Perhaps they could do some experiments on stopping that?
Then just don't send it. As I said in my post, none of it strikes me as particularly scientifically useful, so just leave whatever can't be sent on the ground. Or, get some of the instruments bolted on to someone else's satellite, or have the same satellite sent up the same way but make it do something useful! Sending up a washing machine sized hunk of metal that takes crappy pictures, tracks a reindeer and makes beeping noises is a waste of resources.
I agree that sending something to the ISS via NASA would soak up large sums of money. But the Russians send flights to the ISS too, don't they? I mean, couldn't they just stuff this thing into one of those unmanned supply capsules they send up?
Last I heard it was something like $20 mil to be sent up to the ISS via the Russian Space Agency. If it's that much for a person and their gear, surely it would be a lot cheaper to send an inanimate object?
I was referring to near-earth space (you probably knew that anyway).
Exactly what knowledge are these "young knowledge seekers" seeking, anyway? As I mentioned in my other post, the experiments they're conducting have little to know scientific merit? Are they hoping to learn about any of these topics?: - Building a satellite: Probably, but humans already know how to do that. - How to build a rocket: They won't learn this, because the Russians are handling it and already know. - Rocket and Orbit trajectories: I remember discussing this in Year 12 physics. The theory is well known, and they could learn it better in the classroom.
I fail to see how they can learn anything from this experiment that can't be learned either in the classroom or by sending a package to the ISS. Do we really have to put a washing machine sized hunk of metal into orbit EVERY TIME some bunch of university students want to do some cool experiments?
I really hate to sound like a party pooper, but can we save space for those doing actual science? Space junk is prevalent enough, and competition for orbit space tight enough without adding more useless stuff to the mix. I mean, the most scientific items in the list of tasks are:
-A camera with a 100m per pixel resolution (ridiculously low res, plenty of other picture taking sats available).
-A Cubesat that will track boats around the Norwegian coastline, and one reindeer (just one reindeer? And can't we track boats with other means?)
- A Cubesat testing new communications protocols (why can't this be done terrestrially or with equipment on the ISS?).
- Another Cubesat that takes pictures and tests some gear (send it to the ISS).
So, we've got 4 satellites up there, doing tasks which we can do via other means, wasting space. Why not send the equipment to the ISS? We did put it up there for a reason, didn't we?
Yes, that is true. But most of the supervising is done by the pilot. The pilot must constantly watch the computer controlled flight systems and detect any differences between the computer and his standby instruments instantly, or all sorts of bad shit can happen.
For a really good read about computer controlled flight systems and their limitations, read this article.
Whoops, I made a typo with that 23 hours bit. I can't think of any either.
I understand what you mean about the extra facilities in the cockpit, but the problem with that is that all the extra stuff will take up a fair bit of space. I mean, you'd need a toilet, a galley area with it's own food supply (if it's shared with the rest of the plane it's not secure), and at least two bunk beds for relief crew. That'd just about double the size of the current cockpits, at least. All that extra space takes up quite a bit of seat space, which means the airlines make less money per flight (something they're loath to do on such tight margins).
Besides, there are other ways to make the pilot submit to your will without getting in the cockpit. If you put a box cutter to the throat of a stewardess (or even worse, a child) and tell the pilot to fly you to say, Iran or Libya (and to leave on the moving map displays so you can tell), then he'll almost certainly take you there.
Uh, the door is there for a reason. Do you seriously expect that a pilot on a 23 hour flight is just going to sit there? They have to get up to eat, visit the bathroom, change crews, rest, etc. If you deny them that, more planes will crash due to pilot fatigue than terrorist attacks could ever hope to acheive.
Who the hell modded this offtopic? This is very much ON topic. This is the sort of thing the subject of the article is going to be putting up with for the next 11 months! Isn't that just a bit relevant to the discussion?
Besides, if we brush stuff like this under the rug it'll never get fixed. It deserves exposure.
IMHO, your idea makes good points, but has a problem: most people do not share your level of common sense.
In your "feedforward" system, you mention that "With a feedforward model, people are organised ahead of time to avoid using excessive amounts of gas prior to the rise in prices, so that when the rise does occur, no-one notices it.". This will then result in the following: Joe: Wow, riding my bike sure is great, I don't have to worry about oil prices! And my new hybrid car runs very smooth. Bob: But hybrids are expensive, oil prices are so cheap now! And there are almost no price changes now that people use oil responsibly! I'm thinking about getting an SUV. I can afford one at the current prices and riding to work takes too long. Joe: I don't know Bob... Ted (driving past in car): Hey dudes! Check out my Humvee Mark 4! And my new supermodel girlfriend who equates the size of my engine block with the size of my dick! Joe: Where d'ya get those SUV things?
And before you know it, we're back to feedback system. Humans have a very poor recollection of history most of the time: as soon as things change for the better, we see that as justification to switch back to the old ways. It's just how we are, and changing this behaviour will take a LOT of effort. The only way, IMHO, to get people off of their oil dependancy is for prices to get high and stay high.
The F-117 is NOT invisibile to radar. Notice how the USAF calls it a "stealth" bomber and not an "invisible" bomber? If an F-117 or a B-2 gets close enough to a radar, eventually a solid return WILL come back and it will be detected. Sure, the stealth technology drastically decreases the range at which this will happen, but it is still possible.
Furthermore, the wake turbulence of the F-117 can still be detected, by a radar such as the Jindalee OTH Radar. So the Russian's point of being able to detect anything moving through the air is still valid.
Here's a link to another article that gives some more specific info (and a whole lot of fanboi gushing from Paul Thurrott).
I quote:
Starter Edition will allow only three applications (and/or three windows) to run simultaneously, will provide Internet connectivity but not incoming network communications
No incoming network communications? Three thoughts spring to mind:
1)MS has a hard time enough time trying to stop unwanted incoming network communications as it is. I bet it's cracked in a fortnight.
2) Won't this comms cutoff limit a fair bit of net functionality? Obviously incoming comms for established connections would be OK, but still.
3) Some enterprising cracker will almost certainly get around this. Once they do, those Starter Edition boxes almost certainly won't be running a firewall. Windows Firewall is mentioned as being included in Home Basic, but not Starter, and running a 3rd party firewall would occupy one of the three application spaces available (not desirable). Not to mention that anyone clueless enough to buy Starter wouldn't know what a firewall is anyway. If these Starter boxes are successfully cracked, and if Starter sells well in developing nations (could happen), a whole new wave of zombie boxens could arise.
Sorry, but I don't see how that could be at all profitable.
I mean, who would pay for such a service? Suppose the US did. Then the rest of the world gets a nice clean LEO without contributing a dime, freeloading off of their effort. If you tried to set up some international payment agreement, you'd get all sorts of bickering similar to the Kyoto agreements: why should third world nations pay, why should nations with developing space industries pay the same as behemoths like NASA, etc.
The problem with charging for the upkeep of near-Earth space is that it's accessible to all countries, and impossible to prevent those who don't pay from making use of your services (short of shooting them down, which just creates more junk).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disagreeing with you, your points are very interesting, and I hope some mod points come your way. But you just managed to provide some justification for why things like the ISS and Shuttle are flawed, and you aren't managing NASA. So why couldn't he have spent 5 minutes doing the same in the article?
Salesman 1: You should ditch your current moped for this SUV. The moped was a huge mistake for you. You've wasted you money. Any car I would have bought would have been green for starters.
Salesman 2: You should ditch your current moped for this SUV. The moped was a huge mistake for you, as it has the following flaws
I think in order for NASA to come up with a good program this time around, it needs to spend some time discussing what could have been done better the first go around. Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Uh, then how come I don't suffocate when I go snorkelling? I mean, I'm under water, my skin is covered by fluid, and the only air I get is down the pipe to my lungs. And since I highly doubt my skin is sophisticated enough to crack water into it's base elements of hydrogen and oxygen, I believe you may be mistaken.
He offers plenty of criticism of the current plan, but the article lacks one important detail:
- Exactly what would Mr Smartypants have had us do with the money?
I mean, he states the shuttle was "deeply flawed". What would he have built? Kept shooting Apollo capsules up forever more? Built an Apollo 2? And if the ISS isn't in a good orbit, what orbit would he prefer? And additionally, how were we supposed to know the Shuttle wasn't a solid idea, until we had actually built a few and tested them operationally?
It seems to me he's just trying to ride the wave of popular opinion that says the shuttle must go and the ISS isn't interesting. It's plenty easy to offer criticism, but it's a bit harder to come up with an viable, alternative solutions. If he's going to be so critical as to call the last 30 years a mistake, than it's only fair he steps up to the plate and specifically outline what he would have done better.
Actually, most of the time there was neither. eg. Armour that was not invincible, and a weapon that was not unstoppable. The solution was, and still is to use combinations.
:) .
Example: My firewall will not stop viruses, but will stop most other intrusion attempts. Similarly, my antivirus program does not stop people portscanning my box, but can stop viruses reliably. A computer with one but not the other is vulnerable, a computer using both working together is far more secure. Similarly, most nations send in the troops with an assortment of weapons and tools, because they are more effective across a variety of situations than one weapon ever will be.
There will not be a protection mechanism for Bittorrent that cannot be broken, forged or otherwise avoided. Likewise, nothing the RIAA can throw at Bittorrent cannot be countered in some fashion. By using combinations of protection mechanisms, Bittorrent can be protected to a degree that attacks can be tolerated. The RIAA gets this, that's why they try many tactics, such as torrent poisoning, DRM, the DMCA, sending goons to street vendors, etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just tweaking your points a bit
Here are the full links:i f . jpg
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_esa_02.g
http://www.space.com/images/h_space_junk_nasda_02
The page they came from is here.
Sorry for the screwup.
Yes, the satellite itself retains the same volume, but junk comes from lots of other places. The rocket boosters that send it up shed bolts and various other pieces of foam, paint and metal on their way up and during stage seperation, and the satellite itself, it it gets hit by something, could also shed some debris. Furthermore, the satellite itself splits into 4 pieces when up there, so each one is whizzing around, and has to be tracked individually.
The problem isn't so much about mass, it's about all the individual pieces, because even something as small as a bolt is travelling fast enough to cause major damage. 1 ton of solid metal is far better than 1 ton of loose debris, because it's easier to track and easier to avoid than a cloud of junk.
Here's some graphical representations of junk:
Junk in low orbit.
Junk in higher orbits.
Now that is a damn good idea!
And by funky generators, you mean like this shake torch, right? Cause that would kick ass. I mean, it's a portable gaming device, of course it's going to move, might as well get some current out of it.
What sort of effect does the new screen have on battery usage? Has battery capacity been increased to compensate?
It can be frustrating when new energy-draining features are added without a corresponding increase in power supply. I now a lot of this is due to battery chemistry restrictions, but isn't the Gameboy battery system rather old? Perhaps some new advances have come out that Nintendo could use to offset the extra drain.
FFS, I know I don't have the talent to do it, and good on them if they have the knowledge to do so. I'm happy for them, really. But can't they send up something useful instead of wasting resources? My objection is not to sending up stuff, it's sending up stuff that does not do useful science, and just adds to an increasingly serious problem. Most of this project IMHO does not perform useful science (the reindeer thing could be useful if scaled up, but low res images of Earth that we already have?). If they're going to design and send up a satellite, let it do something really cool (like track more than ONE FRICKIN REINDEER). In any case, why not have just one satellite, instead of 4? That would be much easier to track and prevent collisions.
I mean, does sending up 4 satellities for every, say, 5 universities sound like a good idea to you? Does sending up 1 satellite for each reindeer in Norway sound like a good idea?
No, you wouldn't be right. Because I'M NOT AMERICAN (OMG!). I don't think there should be a governing body, I just think that people and space agencies together should decide to limit what goes up.
And you know what, nobody has ever been killed by exploding the sun before, right? So why don't we just go and do that?
Oh, and check out the nice 500 pound piece of junk in this article that almost hit some guy's house in Texas, as an example of something that was almost damaged. In any case, I know it's unlikely junk will kill people down here, but debris in orbit could be a serious problem to satellites and other space exploration.
I know what you mean, I'd hate it if I was involved in the project and it got cancelled. But IMHO the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'd drawn it here. I mean, how many other university satellites are going to be put up? We can't very well refuse them now that this is going.
I wouldn't mind anywhere near as much if their project was doing something useful. It doesn't have to be development of a warp engine or anything. The reindeer and fishing boat thing could be a decent project if they expanded the scale. But taking pictures with an extremely low res camera is not useful, it's a waste of time.
A deorbit plan would solve some of the junk problem, but it doesn't stop all the tiny (and really dangerous) pieces of junk that get sent up with every launch. Perhaps they could do some experiments on stopping that?
Then just don't send it. As I said in my post, none of it strikes me as particularly scientifically useful, so just leave whatever can't be sent on the ground. Or, get some of the instruments bolted on to someone else's satellite, or have the same satellite sent up the same way but make it do something useful! Sending up a washing machine sized hunk of metal that takes crappy pictures, tracks a reindeer and makes beeping noises is a waste of resources.
I agree that sending something to the ISS via NASA would soak up large sums of money. But the Russians send flights to the ISS too, don't they? I mean, couldn't they just stuff this thing into one of those unmanned supply capsules they send up?
Last I heard it was something like $20 mil to be sent up to the ISS via the Russian Space Agency. If it's that much for a person and their gear, surely it would be a lot cheaper to send an inanimate object?
I was referring to near-earth space (you probably knew that anyway).
Exactly what knowledge are these "young knowledge seekers" seeking, anyway? As I mentioned in my other post, the experiments they're conducting have little to know scientific merit? Are they hoping to learn about any of these topics?:
- Building a satellite: Probably, but humans already know how to do that.
- How to build a rocket: They won't learn this, because the Russians are handling it and already know.
- Rocket and Orbit trajectories: I remember discussing this in Year 12 physics. The theory is well known, and they could learn it better in the classroom.
I fail to see how they can learn anything from this experiment that can't be learned either in the classroom or by sending a package to the ISS. Do we really have to put a washing machine sized hunk of metal into orbit EVERY TIME some bunch of university students want to do some cool experiments?
I really hate to sound like a party pooper, but can we save space for those doing actual science? Space junk is prevalent enough, and competition for orbit space tight enough without adding more useless stuff to the mix. I mean, the most scientific items in the list of tasks are:
-A camera with a 100m per pixel resolution (ridiculously low res, plenty of other picture taking sats available).
-A Cubesat that will track boats around the Norwegian coastline, and one reindeer (just one reindeer? And can't we track boats with other means?)
- A Cubesat testing new communications protocols (why can't this be done terrestrially or with equipment on the ISS?).
- Another Cubesat that takes pictures and tests some gear (send it to the ISS).
So, we've got 4 satellites up there, doing tasks which we can do via other means, wasting space. Why not send the equipment to the ISS? We did put it up there for a reason, didn't we?
Yes, that is true. But most of the supervising is done by the pilot. The pilot must constantly watch the computer controlled flight systems and detect any differences between the computer and his standby instruments instantly, or all sorts of bad shit can happen.
For a really good read about computer controlled flight systems and their limitations, read this article.
Whoops, I made a typo with that 23 hours bit. I can't think of any either.
I understand what you mean about the extra facilities in the cockpit, but the problem with that is that all the extra stuff will take up a fair bit of space. I mean, you'd need a toilet, a galley area with it's own food supply (if it's shared with the rest of the plane it's not secure), and at least two bunk beds for relief crew. That'd just about double the size of the current cockpits, at least. All that extra space takes up quite a bit of seat space, which means the airlines make less money per flight (something they're loath to do on such tight margins).
Besides, there are other ways to make the pilot submit to your will without getting in the cockpit. If you put a box cutter to the throat of a stewardess (or even worse, a child) and tell the pilot to fly you to say, Iran or Libya (and to leave on the moving map displays so you can tell), then he'll almost certainly take you there.
Uh, the door is there for a reason. Do you seriously expect that a pilot on a 23 hour flight is just going to sit there? They have to get up to eat, visit the bathroom, change crews, rest, etc. If you deny them that, more planes will crash due to pilot fatigue than terrorist attacks could ever hope to acheive.
Who the hell modded this offtopic? This is very much ON topic. This is the sort of thing the subject of the article is going to be putting up with for the next 11 months! Isn't that just a bit relevant to the discussion?
Besides, if we brush stuff like this under the rug it'll never get fixed. It deserves exposure.
Thanks for posting that. I never realised it was that bad. I wish I had mod points so I could bump it up.
Nobody deserves that kind of abuse, especially over a crime as insignificant as hacking a cell phone.
IMHO, your idea makes good points, but has a problem: most people do not share your level of common sense.
In your "feedforward" system, you mention that "With a feedforward model, people are organised ahead of time to avoid using excessive amounts of gas prior to the rise in prices, so that when the rise does occur, no-one notices it.". This will then result in the following:
Joe: Wow, riding my bike sure is great, I don't have to worry about oil prices! And my new hybrid car runs very smooth.
Bob: But hybrids are expensive, oil prices are so cheap now! And there are almost no price changes now that people use oil responsibly! I'm thinking about getting an SUV. I can afford one at the current prices and riding to work takes too long.
Joe: I don't know Bob...
Ted (driving past in car): Hey dudes! Check out my Humvee Mark 4! And my new supermodel girlfriend who equates the size of my engine block with the size of my dick!
Joe: Where d'ya get those SUV things?
And before you know it, we're back to feedback system. Humans have a very poor recollection of history most of the time: as soon as things change for the better, we see that as justification to switch back to the old ways. It's just how we are, and changing this behaviour will take a LOT of effort. The only way, IMHO, to get people off of their oil dependancy is for prices to get high and stay high.
What the fuck are YOU talking about?
The F-117 is NOT invisibile to radar. Notice how the USAF calls it a "stealth" bomber and not an "invisible" bomber? If an F-117 or a B-2 gets close enough to a radar, eventually a solid return WILL come back and it will be detected. Sure, the stealth technology drastically decreases the range at which this will happen, but it is still possible.
Furthermore, the wake turbulence of the F-117 can still be detected, by a radar such as the Jindalee OTH Radar. So the Russian's point of being able to detect anything moving through the air is still valid.
Here's a link to another article that gives some more specific info (and a whole lot of fanboi gushing from Paul Thurrott).
I quote: Starter Edition will allow only three applications (and/or three windows) to run simultaneously, will provide Internet connectivity but not incoming network communications
No incoming network communications? Three thoughts spring to mind:
1)MS has a hard time enough time trying to stop unwanted incoming network communications as it is. I bet it's cracked in a fortnight.
2) Won't this comms cutoff limit a fair bit of net functionality? Obviously incoming comms for established connections would be OK, but still.
3) Some enterprising cracker will almost certainly get around this. Once they do, those Starter Edition boxes almost certainly won't be running a firewall. Windows Firewall is mentioned as being included in Home Basic, but not Starter, and running a 3rd party firewall would occupy one of the three application spaces available (not desirable). Not to mention that anyone clueless enough to buy Starter wouldn't know what a firewall is anyway. If these Starter boxes are successfully cracked, and if Starter sells well in developing nations (could happen), a whole new wave of zombie boxens could arise.
Thanks for nothing MS.
Sorry, but I don't see how that could be at all profitable.
I mean, who would pay for such a service? Suppose the US did. Then the rest of the world gets a nice clean LEO without contributing a dime, freeloading off of their effort. If you tried to set up some international payment agreement, you'd get all sorts of bickering similar to the Kyoto agreements: why should third world nations pay, why should nations with developing space industries pay the same as behemoths like NASA, etc.
The problem with charging for the upkeep of near-Earth space is that it's accessible to all countries, and impossible to prevent those who don't pay from making use of your services (short of shooting them down, which just creates more junk).