Note that the nodaddy.com site hasn't done a lot of research on the registrars they listed and they warn you about that. It is JUST a list of registrars they have heard good things about.
That is a local story for me. They didn't find any child porn on home or work computers from what the newspaper is reporting.
They did find some hints of illegal drug use, which may result in misdemeanor charges. Of course, given all the other problems with the case, including the person's frequent mentions that the account had been compromised, those charges might not appear.
If you are in an office or school, look overhead and determine what type of lighting you have. There are a lot of places where it is fluorescent lighting in the long tube format.
Said tubes also contain mercury. But few, if any people, seem to consider these as part of the mercury contamination controversy.
If these tubes aren't a problem because they are disposed of properly, couldn't the CFLs be put into the same disposal chain?
And if the tubes ARE a problem because of improper disposal, shouldn't they also be mentioned along with the CFLs?
In the places I've voted at, you have to sign a preprinted list before you get your ballot. It sounds like the people in charge of that polling place weren't trained properly.
That still doesn't diminish the voting machine problem. If voting machines are not 'honest', then both legal AND illegal votes could be redistributed via machine count errors.
I can't say that the person is ignoring the literature side of things by pointing out how Clarke and others affected other professions.
When you think about it, great literature often has an impact on society outside the bounds of literature.
For example, Charles Dickens got a lot of people to thinking about the problems of the lower classes with his writings. "A Christmas Carol", written in 1843, is still having an impact on society.
I wouldn't be surprised if, a century from now, the best of the Big Three of science fiction is still being read. After all, we still enjoy the works of Jules Verne that were written in the 1860s and 1870s.
That was also my thought when my eldest son mentioned Clarke had died.
My first SF book that I recall reading was Clarke's "Dolphin Island". I was in Hawaii at the time, in the early to mid 1960s.
The first SF book that I owned was Heinlein's "Green Hills of Earth", purchased in 1968 or so.
The first truly useful personal computer I owned was a Tandy 1000SX from Radio Shack, a relative of the TRS80. I seem to recall that Asimov was an early adopter of the TRS80, around when Apple was also starting to create useful personal computers.
I remember the first Clarke book I read. I was in the third or fourth grade when I got a hold of a green covered book called "Dolphin Island" back in the early to mid 1960s.
I'll miss Clarke, just as I miss Heinlein and Asimov. The original "Big Three" of science fiction is now gone.
Oddly enough, one of the members of my computer support team ran into a problem with Microsoft centric programming when running a new application that 'everybody' swore was platform independent. He was running it on a MAC and found that critical functions were VB dependent.
If it had been 'properly' designed in a non-VB environment, perhaps with Sun standard JAVA, then he wouldn't be swearing at the people that said it would work on all machines.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if a facial recognition system falsely identified you as someone else.
What could you do to counter the identification, especially if that is the only ID they have access to?
Now some people may say that it is 'impossible' for this to happen. But do note that 'impossible' just needs ONE example to the contrary to prove that the theory is wrong.
As a side note, I remember a local case where DNA sampling was used to 'prove' that a person was guilty. According to the paper, there was a one in ten thousand chance that the testing was wrong.
If that is their idea of high reliability, the attorney needed to multiply that number by the population of the same gender to determine that there are other possible suspects.
I believe I've read somewhere that the Great Wall was more of a way to slow invaders down on the way out, so that local troups could catch up to them. Having a large force to patrol the entire wall would be expensive. But once it it breeched, you have a good idea where they will be leaving.
The title of the article is a bit deceptive. I suspect that customized '404' pages have been around long before the patent application. (The style of the customization would depend upon the web site designers and administrators. They range from cryptic through helpful, sarcastic, sympathetic and clueless.)
Having the browser use client side data to provide information as to WHY you are getting '404' is a form of customization that is different. While old style customized '404' pages might display possible causes, a feed back driven '404' page could prove valuable by displaying possible causes with data to back it up.
The sample image they provide is the mere tip of the iceberg of applications. Not only is it used to inform the end user of what probably went wrong, it provides ways to remedy the problem. It could even be used to inform the website that something may be wrong, so the website could be self repairing.
On a commerce oriented website, the bare bones 'Smart 404' page could get the end user to the page they want automatically, if it exists. It could also redirect them to alternative websites when necessary. (Note that end user feedback and selfrepairing abilities would also be a feature valued by commercial websites.)
The biggest problem I see with this are the security issues that crop up. A whole new world of '404' hijackings will make browser security that much harder.
Maybe I should patent a 'Smart 404' security protocol using 'tell me three times' web based codes that determine when the page is compromised...
I believe that the corkscrew problem of the first of the two X-Prize flights might have been due to pilot error or something easily correctable.
The second flight, by the ex-Navy pilot, didn't have the problem. In fact, the pilot broke the unofficial altitude record held by an X15.
(Of course, on an earlier test flight if my memory is right, the same pilot landed SS2 a bit hard, causing the landing skid to collapse. Embarassing, but not a disaster. But that is what doing test flights is about.)
The contributions to space exploration on the hardware side may be minimal, but when it comes to marketing, SS2 is going to have a big impact. Thousands of people will be able to have a taste of suborbital space akin to what the X15 pilots and the first Mercury astronaut had.
That joyride will encourage people to want more, creating a market AND a track record for airline style space flight. Both the market and the track record will encourage traditional lenders to provide cash for orbital flights.
You might also consider the possibility that frequently flown SS2s can provide a database for what to expect in terms of general wear and tear for part of an orbital launch and landing sequence. It won't show the full effect of the higher stresses of an orbital launch and landing, but it can provide some guidance to future designs. (I suspect that Boeing and others check the maintenance histories of older models when designing newer ones. This would be similar.)
I wouldn't be surprized if WK2 is used as a launch platform for what might be called SpaceShipThree, an orbital version using different launch and landing technologies. SS3 would be like SS1, going into orbit and landing with a minimal payload to prove that it works. Once SS3 is proven, SS4, the production version, gets built. That then starts to replace SS2 as both joyride AND materials transport.
If this were in the type of environment that academic types work in, or multinational corporations with thousands of IT staffers, there wouldn't be a problem. Everything would be properly documented at all levels and the documentation would be completely accurate and up-to-date. There would even be a detailed history of changes and proposed enhancements so you could get a feel for where software development had come from and where it was heading.
I would love to see this in action. It is such a nice concept.
Unfortunately, ideal software engineering in smaller organizations gets corrupted by such realities as time limits, budgets, last minute emergencies and differences in implementation. This is rarely addressed in the programming courses I've seen over the years.
I've always thought that colleges that teach programming should have a year long 'maintenance' programming course that echoes reality in smaller organizations. They would start with a functioning software package that needs repairs and enhancements. There would be some catches though.
For example, some but not all documentation would be available. This would simulate documentation being lost, misplaced or removed by ex-employees.
Of the documentation that is available, a good chunk of it will be inaccurate or out-of-date. Some of it may not even be relevant to the software package because it represents proposals that never became projects.
Dropping down to the code level, there should be several programming styles, from the ideal, with comments, to the horrific, uber-geek 'one line does it all'. Then add complications like large sections of code that are never used and comments that are inaccurate.
Now add a dose of deadline oriented reality by having things like production breakdowns requiring quick fixes interrupt project development. Then interrupt project development with mini-projects that the 'CxO' wants now. (These one-time projects might appear multiple times, but with slightly different parameters.)
If the students haven't been scared off by this time, have the 'CxO' make changes to the project or even put it on hold while a different project is done.
These and other catches would give future software engineers an idea of what things are like in less than ideal situations.
According to the article, this 'flawed' engineering appears to work in an area that doesn't get a lot of sunny days. That tells me that the engineers involved are far from drunk.
Note that it collects heat in the warm season to be used in the cold season. A jackhammer or backhoe applied to the road or parking lot collectors wouldn't have much impact on the heat already stored. (They could, however, cut off gas lines and underground power lines, a flaw in 'modern' heating systems.)
Now the potential for freezing pipes and buckled asphalt does exist, though that can be minimized through simple techniques like draining the pipes when the heat collection season is over. People in climates that get snow on a regular basis are quite familiar with the concept of blowing out their sprinkler systems to prevent those pipes from freezing/breaking.
The DOT objection is a very good one in a limited sense. I wouldn't want the DOT to tear up my streets to install heat collection systems just to get them in place. But given the amount of space dedicated to parking lots in the United States, the DOT, or local equivalent, would rarely need to get involved. They could let the businesses with the parking lots do the work.
Now if DOT controlled streets ARE used for heat collection, it could be done in such a way that the collection system is put in when the street is upgraded or rebuilt/repaved. With the right planning, the additional work wouldn't add that much time to construction. The DOT could then charge people for the use of the heat collected.
Virgin Galactic has been asking for deposits for tickets on a proven technology that should be able to be scaled up. It is not like they are taking a tenth scale model and trying to enlarge that. And if the scaling doesn't work, they can always go back to the White Knight One and SpaceShipOne plans and crank them out.
Phase 1: This is being done in a sense. Private investors, like Paul Allen of Microsoft and Richard Branson of Virgin are providing the sponsorship through direct infusion of cash. This doesn't prevent other groups from doing the small investment route. ("The Man Who Sold the Moon" by Robert Heinlein would fit this.)
Phase 2: The 'best' reusable craft is limited to three or so designs at the moment. (I'm basing this on American craft that have gone into space and returned to be reused again.) One is the original X-15. Another is the space shuttle. The third is SpaceShipOne. In time, as other groups successfully send people up AND get them back down, there will be others. Success in these areas will attract serious investment from institutions and not just rich people.
Phase 3: Bigelow Aerospace is already working with inflatable modules that can be used for a commercial space station. I seem to recall that samples are already in orbit. They'll provide habitable space that is more resistant to dings and bumps than hardshell modules and can be launched in a variety of vehicles. I predict that there will be other companies building a variety of modules that can be put into orbit WHEN we get cheaper launch capabilities. (And there will be maintenance companies that keep said modules functional once they are up there.) Sponsorships may not be needed here, especially if the modules are used for rich tourists and zero-G manufacturing.
Phase 4: Asteroid mining is one area where a company could make lots of money. Since businesses want to keep expenses low, they'll be designing and building lots of space-locked vehicles to do the job.
At the same time, accidents will happen and there will be instances where asteroids, cargo ships and cometary remains may be bound for very fast reentry into Earth's atmosphere. This is where having an emergency response team to prevent the reentry would be essential. While it could be supported via sponsorships, it would be better if it were a governmental agency like the Coast Guard.
This space based Coast Guard might even be able to pay for itself by doing asteroid and comet herding of natural threats.
Phase 5: The space farms will probably start happening in Phase 3. Water, nutrients, seeds and space farm equipment will be launched at much lower costs than the NASA standard of $10K and put into special modules that are as automated as possible. Other modules will handle sewage and air scrubbing, reducing but not eliminating the need for supplies. Eventually there will be enough space farm capacity to eliminate most food launches, with exceptions like beef, tree based spices and things that don't grow in space. (In time this could be replaced by vat grown meat and high quality synthetics, but that technology isn't quite here yet.)
There are all kinds of ways that this could be funded. While free enterprise can work, there will be governments that will design or buy space tech. And there is room for sponsorship based action too.
The article summary, as well as the article itself, mentioned that there could be a White Knight 3 for orbital launches.
Another person mentioned Pegasus, which has been used to put small payloads into orbit. Oddly enough, Rutan's company worked with Pegasus. But I believe that THOSE launches were off B52s.
A quick check of the www.scaled.com site links to the group that does the Pegasus launches. They are using a modified L-1011 for launches now and have over twenty successful launches.
Rutan might be able to do better than the L-1011 with a White Knight version that has a higher ceiling or better fuel economy.
The complexity of the system and the magnitude of the problem play an important part in this.
If it is a simple fix in a well understood part of the package, 48 hour turn around would be reasonable. This might be necessary if someone made a mistake that QA missed because testing requires special conditions unique to the customer. (Bullet proof testing is virtually impossible once the complexity of the system reaches a certain point. You can't test ALL the branching options a client is likely to encounter unless the system is VERY simple.)
If the sales people claim that something is a simple fix, and it isn't, try to document what the so called 'simple fix' requires in terms of modification and testing. You'll have to do the research anyway to do the fix, so you might consider presenting the preliminary results of your impact analysis and say that this is only the first pass.
Many science programs that are not directly applicable to everyday life contribute to our overall knowledge of how things work. Once the topics have been understood well enough, people start coming up with ideas on how to apply that knowledge to everyday life. (Space program provides comm and weather satellites. Particle physics leads to medical scanning technology like MRIs. String theory might give us future power sources or the ability to cross the galaxy.)
If you want to focus on a totally useless waste of money, focus on the media and the advertising industry, especially when it comes to sports, politics and celebrities. The money spent in those areas, directly and indirectly, make science programs look cheap. And to add to the irony factor, a lot of the hype is assisted by technologies that are spun off by science programs, public and private.
I was in college in the transitional years when sliderules were still used in class but electronic calculators were making inroads. I had my basic Pickett sliderule and could get reasonable results.
When I started my college career, the ultimate calculator was the HP35. All the engineering students that could afford it paid their four hundred dollars to get the calculator, which was somewhat on the bulky side.
About seven years later, you could get a credit card sized calculator that could do all the HP35 could do, plus basic statistics, all for forty dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
One can always hope that people will notice that it is an unresearched list IF a comment is made about it.
Note that the nodaddy.com site hasn't done a lot of research on the registrars they listed and they warn you about that. It is JUST a list of registrars they have heard good things about.
That is a local story for me. They didn't find any child porn on home or work computers from what the newspaper is reporting.
They did find some hints of illegal drug use, which may result in misdemeanor charges. Of course, given all the other problems with the case, including the person's frequent mentions that the account had been compromised, those charges might not appear.
If the mercury contamination from coal burning is going into the air, then it is also ending up in our drinking water, plus lots of other places.
If you are in an office or school, look overhead and determine what type of lighting you have. There are a lot of places where it is fluorescent lighting in the long tube format.
Said tubes also contain mercury. But few, if any people, seem to consider these as part of the mercury contamination controversy.
If these tubes aren't a problem because they are disposed of properly, couldn't the CFLs be put into the same disposal chain?
And if the tubes ARE a problem because of improper disposal, shouldn't they also be mentioned along with the CFLs?
In the places I've voted at, you have to sign a preprinted list before you get your ballot. It sounds like the people in charge of that polling place weren't trained properly.
That still doesn't diminish the voting machine problem. If voting machines are not 'honest', then both legal AND illegal votes could be redistributed via machine count errors.
That quote is a good one for any writer.
I agree with it completely and consider Clarke to be one of the writers who represent the ideals of writing.
I can't say that the person is ignoring the literature side of things by pointing out how Clarke and others affected other professions.
When you think about it, great literature often has an impact on society outside the bounds of literature.
For example, Charles Dickens got a lot of people to thinking about the problems of the lower classes with his writings. "A Christmas Carol", written in 1843, is still having an impact on society.
I wouldn't be surprised if, a century from now, the best of the Big Three of science fiction is still being read. After all, we still enjoy the works of Jules Verne that were written in the 1860s and 1870s.
That is one of my family's favorite quotes.
Of course, we also like the Heinlein version. "One man's magic is another man's engineering."
That was also my thought when my eldest son mentioned Clarke had died.
My first SF book that I recall reading was Clarke's "Dolphin Island". I was in Hawaii at the time, in the early to mid 1960s.
The first SF book that I owned was Heinlein's "Green Hills of Earth", purchased in 1968 or so.
The first truly useful personal computer I owned was a Tandy 1000SX from Radio Shack, a relative of the TRS80. I seem to recall that Asimov was an early adopter of the TRS80, around when Apple was also starting to create useful personal computers.
I remember the first Clarke book I read. I was in the third or fourth grade when I got a hold of a green covered book called "Dolphin Island" back in the early to mid 1960s.
I'll miss Clarke, just as I miss Heinlein and Asimov. The original "Big Three" of science fiction is now gone.
Oddly enough, one of the members of my computer support team ran into a problem with Microsoft centric programming when running a new application that 'everybody' swore was platform independent. He was running it on a MAC and found that critical functions were VB dependent.
If it had been 'properly' designed in a non-VB environment, perhaps with Sun standard JAVA, then he wouldn't be swearing at the people that said it would work on all machines.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if a facial recognition system falsely identified you as someone else.
What could you do to counter the identification, especially if that is the only ID they have access to?
Now some people may say that it is 'impossible' for this to happen. But do note that 'impossible' just needs ONE example to the contrary to prove that the theory is wrong.
As a side note, I remember a local case where DNA sampling was used to 'prove' that a person was guilty. According to the paper, there was a one in ten thousand chance that the testing was wrong.
If that is their idea of high reliability, the attorney needed to multiply that number by the population of the same gender to determine that there are other possible suspects.
I believe I've read somewhere that the Great Wall was more of a way to slow invaders down on the way out, so that local troups could catch up to them. Having a large force to patrol the entire wall would be expensive. But once it it breeched, you have a good idea where they will be leaving.
The title of the article is a bit deceptive. I suspect that customized '404' pages have been around long before the patent application. (The style of the customization would depend upon the web site designers and administrators. They range from cryptic through helpful, sarcastic, sympathetic and clueless.)
Having the browser use client side data to provide information as to WHY you are getting '404' is a form of customization that is different. While old style customized '404' pages might display possible causes, a feed back driven '404' page could prove valuable by displaying possible causes with data to back it up.
The sample image they provide is the mere tip of the iceberg of applications. Not only is it used to inform the end user of what probably went wrong, it provides ways to remedy the problem. It could even be used to inform the website that something may be wrong, so the website could be self repairing.
On a commerce oriented website, the bare bones 'Smart 404' page could get the end user to the page they want automatically, if it exists. It could also redirect them to alternative websites when necessary. (Note that end user feedback and selfrepairing abilities would also be a feature valued by commercial websites.)
The biggest problem I see with this are the security issues that crop up. A whole new world of '404' hijackings will make browser security that much harder.
Maybe I should patent a 'Smart 404' security protocol using 'tell me three times' web based codes that determine when the page is compromised...
I believe that the corkscrew problem of the first of the two X-Prize flights might have been due to pilot error or something easily correctable.
The second flight, by the ex-Navy pilot, didn't have the problem. In fact, the pilot broke the unofficial altitude record held by an X15.
(Of course, on an earlier test flight if my memory is right, the same pilot landed SS2 a bit hard, causing the landing skid to collapse. Embarassing, but not a disaster. But that is what doing test flights is about.)
The contributions to space exploration on the hardware side may be minimal, but when it comes to marketing, SS2 is going to have a big impact. Thousands of people will be able to have a taste of suborbital space akin to what the X15 pilots and the first Mercury astronaut had.
That joyride will encourage people to want more, creating a market AND a track record for airline style space flight. Both the market and the track record will encourage traditional lenders to provide cash for orbital flights.
You might also consider the possibility that frequently flown SS2s can provide a database for what to expect in terms of general wear and tear for part of an orbital launch and landing sequence. It won't show the full effect of the higher stresses of an orbital launch and landing, but it can provide some guidance to future designs. (I suspect that Boeing and others check the maintenance histories of older models when designing newer ones. This would be similar.)
I wouldn't be surprized if WK2 is used as a launch platform for what might be called SpaceShipThree, an orbital version using different launch and landing technologies. SS3 would be like SS1, going into orbit and landing with a minimal payload to prove that it works. Once SS3 is proven, SS4, the production version, gets built. That then starts to replace SS2 as both joyride AND materials transport.
If this were in the type of environment that academic types work in, or multinational corporations with thousands of IT staffers, there wouldn't be a problem. Everything would be properly documented at all levels and the documentation would be completely accurate and up-to-date. There would even be a detailed history of changes and proposed enhancements so you could get a feel for where software development had come from and where it was heading.
I would love to see this in action. It is such a nice concept.
Unfortunately, ideal software engineering in smaller organizations gets corrupted by such realities as time limits, budgets, last minute emergencies and differences in implementation. This is rarely addressed in the programming courses I've seen over the years.
I've always thought that colleges that teach programming should have a year long 'maintenance' programming course that echoes reality in smaller organizations. They would start with a functioning software package that needs repairs and enhancements. There would be some catches though.
For example, some but not all documentation would be available. This would simulate documentation being lost, misplaced or removed by ex-employees.
Of the documentation that is available, a good chunk of it will be inaccurate or out-of-date. Some of it may not even be relevant to the software package because it represents proposals that never became projects.
Dropping down to the code level, there should be several programming styles, from the ideal, with comments, to the horrific, uber-geek 'one line does it all'. Then add complications like large sections of code that are never used and comments that are inaccurate.
Now add a dose of deadline oriented reality by having things like production breakdowns requiring quick fixes interrupt project development. Then interrupt project development with mini-projects that the 'CxO' wants now. (These one-time projects might appear multiple times, but with slightly different parameters.)
If the students haven't been scared off by this time, have the 'CxO' make changes to the project or even put it on hold while a different project is done.
These and other catches would give future software engineers an idea of what things are like in less than ideal situations.
According to the article, this 'flawed' engineering appears to work in an area that doesn't get a lot of sunny days. That tells me that the engineers involved are far from drunk.
Note that it collects heat in the warm season to be used in the cold season. A jackhammer or backhoe applied to the road or parking lot collectors wouldn't have much impact on the heat already stored. (They could, however, cut off gas lines and underground power lines, a flaw in 'modern' heating systems.)
Now the potential for freezing pipes and buckled asphalt does exist, though that can be minimized through simple techniques like draining the pipes when the heat collection season is over. People in climates that get snow on a regular basis are quite familiar with the concept of blowing out their sprinkler systems to prevent those pipes from freezing/breaking.
The DOT objection is a very good one in a limited sense. I wouldn't want the DOT to tear up my streets to install heat collection systems just to get them in place. But given the amount of space dedicated to parking lots in the United States, the DOT, or local equivalent, would rarely need to get involved. They could let the businesses with the parking lots do the work.
Now if DOT controlled streets ARE used for heat collection, it could be done in such a way that the collection system is put in when the street is upgraded or rebuilt/repaved. With the right planning, the additional work wouldn't add that much time to construction. The DOT could then charge people for the use of the heat collected.
Virgin Galactic has been asking for deposits for tickets on a proven technology that should be able to be scaled up. It is not like they are taking a tenth scale model and trying to enlarge that. And if the scaling doesn't work, they can always go back to the White Knight One and SpaceShipOne plans and crank them out.
Phase 1: This is being done in a sense. Private investors, like Paul Allen of Microsoft and Richard Branson of Virgin are providing the sponsorship through direct infusion of cash. This doesn't prevent other groups from doing the small investment route. ("The Man Who Sold the Moon" by Robert Heinlein would fit this.)
Phase 2: The 'best' reusable craft is limited to three or so designs at the moment. (I'm basing this on American craft that have gone into space and returned to be reused again.) One is the original X-15. Another is the space shuttle. The third is SpaceShipOne. In time, as other groups successfully send people up AND get them back down, there will be others. Success in these areas will attract serious investment from institutions and not just rich people.
Phase 3: Bigelow Aerospace is already working with inflatable modules that can be used for a commercial space station. I seem to recall that samples are already in orbit. They'll provide habitable space that is more resistant to dings and bumps than hardshell modules and can be launched in a variety of vehicles. I predict that there will be other companies building a variety of modules that can be put into orbit WHEN we get cheaper launch capabilities. (And there will be maintenance companies that keep said modules functional once they are up there.) Sponsorships may not be needed here, especially if the modules are used for rich tourists and zero-G manufacturing.
Phase 4: Asteroid mining is one area where a company could make lots of money. Since businesses want to keep expenses low, they'll be designing and building lots of space-locked vehicles to do the job.
At the same time, accidents will happen and there will be instances where asteroids, cargo ships and cometary remains may be bound for very fast reentry into Earth's atmosphere. This is where having an emergency response team to prevent the reentry would be essential. While it could be supported via sponsorships, it would be better if it were a governmental agency like the Coast Guard.
This space based Coast Guard might even be able to pay for itself by doing asteroid and comet herding of natural threats.
Phase 5: The space farms will probably start happening in Phase 3. Water, nutrients, seeds and space farm equipment will be launched at much lower costs than the NASA standard of $10K and put into special modules that are as automated as possible. Other modules will handle sewage and air scrubbing, reducing but not eliminating the need for supplies. Eventually there will be enough space farm capacity to eliminate most food launches, with exceptions like beef, tree based spices and things that don't grow in space. (In time this could be replaced by vat grown meat and high quality synthetics, but that technology isn't quite here yet.)
There are all kinds of ways that this could be funded. While free enterprise can work, there will be governments that will design or buy space tech. And there is room for sponsorship based action too.
The article summary, as well as the article itself, mentioned that there could be a White Knight 3 for orbital launches.
Another person mentioned Pegasus, which has been used to put small payloads into orbit. Oddly enough, Rutan's company worked with Pegasus. But I believe that THOSE launches were off B52s.
A quick check of the www.scaled.com site links to the group that does the Pegasus launches. They are using a modified L-1011 for launches now and have over twenty successful launches.
Rutan might be able to do better than the L-1011 with a White Knight version that has a higher ceiling or better fuel economy.
The complexity of the system and the magnitude of the problem play an important part in this.
If it is a simple fix in a well understood part of the package, 48 hour turn around would be reasonable. This might be necessary if someone made a mistake that QA missed because testing requires special conditions unique to the customer. (Bullet proof testing is virtually impossible once the complexity of the system reaches a certain point. You can't test ALL the branching options a client is likely to encounter unless the system is VERY simple.)
If the sales people claim that something is a simple fix, and it isn't, try to document what the so called 'simple fix' requires in terms of modification and testing. You'll have to do the research anyway to do the fix, so you might consider presenting the preliminary results of your impact analysis and say that this is only the first pass.
Those religions that claim that Man is created in the image of God may need to differentiate between PHYSICAL image and SPIRITUAL image.
If the PHYSICAL image is important to the religion, they may have to do some rewriting, especially if the ETs are radically non-human.
If the SPIRITUAL image is the key, rewriting may not be necessary, especially if the core values are similar.
Many science programs that are not directly applicable to everyday life contribute to our overall knowledge of how things work. Once the topics have been understood well enough, people start coming up with ideas on how to apply that knowledge to everyday life. (Space program provides comm and weather satellites. Particle physics leads to medical scanning technology like MRIs. String theory might give us future power sources or the ability to cross the galaxy.)
If you want to focus on a totally useless waste of money, focus on the media and the advertising industry, especially when it comes to sports, politics and celebrities. The money spent in those areas, directly and indirectly, make science programs look cheap. And to add to the irony factor, a lot of the hype is assisted by technologies that are spun off by science programs, public and private.
I was in college in the transitional years when sliderules were still used in class but electronic calculators were making inroads. I had my basic Pickett sliderule and could get reasonable results.
When I started my college career, the ultimate calculator was the HP35. All the engineering students that could afford it paid their four hundred dollars to get the calculator, which was somewhat on the bulky side.
About seven years later, you could get a credit card sized calculator that could do all the HP35 could do, plus basic statistics, all for forty dollars.