Dealing with currency counterfeiting is the job of the Secret Service. From the Treasury dept. website:
"The Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of United States obligations and securities. This authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056. Some of the counterfeited United States obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins; U.S. Treasury checks; Department of Agriculture food coupons and U.S. postage stamps."
I don't think the laptops cause any more isolation than there was before. A typical Georgia Tech computer lab is usually full of people zoned out on their own work (often with headphones on) or in small clusters of people. No real interation there, outside of the group work for projects and such.
The laptops just make it easier to get to computing resources. Instead of all of us having to cram into a lab, fight over computers, and try to get seating next to each other, we could go anywhere (dorm, other building, off campus, etc.), and plug in the laptops. They also let you get more stuff done between classes because you don't have to waste time walking to/from your dorm or the library. And then you have the AE department, which kicks undergrads off the lab computers at 11pm and locks them out of the room until 7am the next day, apparently because they just aren't important.
I know having the laptop was the single best investment I made in school. Yes, it's a distraction, but it's more than made up for when you can just whip it out and work on stuff for thirty mintues at a time, instead of having to wait till you go home for the day.
I wish I had mod points... "When I need something, I'll come looking for you" sums it up perfectly. I'm more than willing to click on the "sponsored links" section in a Google search and see if they have what I'm looking for, but I never, repeat NEVER, click on banner ads or anything like that.
Well, it's just as bad as saying "It's hot today, therefore it has to be global warming!" And it's even worse to say, "Ihotter today, therefore it has to be global warming; and because the climate is changing, man MUST be the cause!" A lot of people seem to live in denial of the fact that nature can change on its own.
AM and FM will probably be with us for a VERY long time, because their relative simplicity (compared to digital equipment) makes them cheap and easy to produce, and therefore still useable even in emergencies (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc).
a) Had we invaded, there would have been many more deaths on both sides
b) Invasion plans called for peppering the landing areas and rest of Japan with nukes anyways
I remember reading about Japanese plans for an invasion... basically, everything down to little rowboats would be loaded with explosives and sent on suicide missions. There's a very real chance Japan would not have given up until the vast majority of the people had died.
I know; my point was that we could have diverted all the _funding_ to a Mars program and had a viable colony running there. And we wouldn't have so many people getting fscked over for smoking a little weed, when there are much worse things to worry about.
Anyone else find it ironic that Georgia, the good old state that still doesn't allow liquor sales on Sunday, is going to be leading production of ethanol?
A picture like this isn't going to suddenly teach you how to make super-quiet submarines. It's been generally known for a while that the propellers look like that (7-8 scimitar-shaped blades). What this picture won't show you is the details--blade twist, cross-section, etc. In the same way that just looking at an airliner won't teach you how to make a good, low-drag supercritical wing, or looking at pictures of a Saturn V won't teach you how to build ballistic missiles (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/ 30/0215204), this picture isn't much help. The Navy is still not happy it was leaked, but it's still pretty far down on the "things that can be leaked" list.
And almost nobody does it in 40 hours these days. Most take at least 50-60 before they're ready for the checkride.
Remember, in the air, you can't just pull over; you have to keep flying the airplane till you've landed and stopped. You have an extra dimension to worry about, more things can go wrong, and there are so many more interesting ways of losing control.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more people pursuing flying, even just as a hobby; but while many out there don't do it because they wrongly believe it's too expensive or they just don't know about the opportunity, there are many others out there who just couldn't handle it. Driving seems to be pushing their limits already.
I'd say there's a conceptual bug, of the "if your engine quits you're dead" kind. Every plane I've flown has the ability to glide (at least a little bit) after the engine dies. This thing will drop like the proverbial brick.
How is that "not staying competitive" in the marketplace? If you're talking about gobbling up market share, then I guess he might be losing out on getting more contracts. But why does it matter how hard his employees work if they're happy with their pay, the company's making a profit, and they get steady business? I know if I'm looking for consultants to do $task for a fixed amount, I'm not going to care how much work said consultants do per week, or whether they're utilizing their resources near capacity, as long as the job gets done.
And, I doubt he has to worry about stockholders that are always looking for growth and bigger profits. "Good enough" FTW.
I should have been more specific... maybe saying can't find anything" because I don't know where to look. I'm used to the windows directory system (though whoever thought of the registry ought to have their dangly bits forcefully removed), and I don't like change. I've learned to work in the windows paradigm, and I like being able to giBut there are still many little things that bug me:
Closing all windows associated with a program should quit the program, not leave it running in the background. I'd say that's more intuitive than command-Q.
No simple right click. Yeah, you can hold down another button, or do some finger-dance on the touchpad... but why can't there be two plain-old buttons? Hell, give me a bunch of buttons.
The common menu bar at the top. I much prefer menu bars in the individual windows.
Office on a Mac (at least the version she has, 2000 IIRC) is one of the most obfuscated and f'ed-up interfaces I've seen; it ranks right up there with Catia v4. Instead of sensible tool and menu bars across the top, there are all kinds of little windows floating around everywhere.
The bubbliness. I happen to like boring old gray and black.
Half the programs I use regularly (admittedly, most are games of a sort) just aren't available on anything but windows.
And about the regularly-crashing mac--it was OS X. I think my XP machine is as stable as her macs--very few full-blown crashes, though lots of CTD because of my own fooling around with stuff I probably shouldn't...
There's a reason students are taught more than just the stuff they will use directly in the future. We don't expect most adults to be able to derive physics equations or predict chemical reactions five or ten years down the road; we don't expect them to be able to do detailed calculations that they aren't using at work. We do, however, want them to learn the basics of how the world around them works, and want them to be able to exercise at least basic skepticism when presented with potentially misleading information.
For example:
We want them to grok the basics of physics, biology, and chemistry at least on a qualitative level, so that they will be able to pick out the obvious BS from the media and hollywood; or if they're sitting on jury duty, be able to understand expert testimony and not expect things to work like they do on TV shows (CSI et al).
We want them to have a basic grasp of what is physically possible so they don't start making unreasonable demands of engineers, scientists, and politicians.
We want them to have at least seen how genetics, cellular biology, photosynthesis, and all that work, so that when some snake-oil salesman comes along and spits out biobabble or hypes some new therapy or cure, the little BS light comes on in their head and tells them to be careful, or seek another opinion.
We want them to be able to understand the basics behind what their doctor is telling them, and therefore be able to make better-informed decisions about their health care.
We want them to understand why orbits work the way they do, and at least be shown Kepler's laws and all that, so they understand that astrology=crackpottery, and don't go making decisions based on it.
We want them to know how various machines and things work, and why, so that when they bring their car in because of a noise, they can figure out what the mechanic is telling them, or at least be able to go home, look it up, and understand it, and thereby be able to separate the BS from the plausible. You don't need to be able to explain on the spot how a car works, but you should hopefully be able to figure out the basics with a little research.
We're not trying to turn everyone into a scientist--we just want to instill some common sense and skepticism in people. And just maybe inspire some kid to pursue stuff further, since it's kinda hard to know about something and be interested in it if you don't even know it exists.
"You're one for three, in my experience. Hardware issues: yeah, I've had a few. But my Mac just never crashes."
I must be unlucky then. When we first started dating, my now-fiancee used to brag about how her iMac (and all the other macs her family used to own) never crashed or had problems. I somehow managed to kill it within five minutes of using that computer for the first time. I crash the laptop she replaced it with on a regular basis, too. I don't think my three-year-old XP machine has crashed much more than the macs.
I personally hate the mac interface; it's too bubbly and I can't find anything. I prefer the look and most (actual) features of XP set to the "classic" style. Now, MS could do a much better job with implementation and security and all that, but for the most part I like the interface.
"Such a simple feature! Why hasn't EVERY cell phone done this before (or yet)? "
Because then they (the phone companies) can't charge you airtime to listen to all of them. That's why they don't have a "skip" feature, or a "delete message without waiting till end" (at least that I can find).
It's not so much that they should learn because they're going to use it at work, but rather so that they're at least somewhat familiar with the process, which should give them a better understanding of their work. In the same vein, mechanical engineers should be at least vaguely familiar with machine shops and know how to use common hand tools. Aerospace engineers should take a flying lesson or two (or at least spend a few hours with a simulator) and have a qualitative understanding of how airplanes behave; if they're working at a production company, they should spend a couple weeks swinging wrenches or driving rivets. Civil engineers should spend some time at a construction site, pouring concrete or riveting or whatever. I've seen many engineers sit down, do a bunch of calculations, and triumphantly draw out this "perfect" part--only to have the machinist tell him flat-out that it is impossible to build. I saw a lot of guys doing all their calculations for their senior projects, and not realizing that they mixed up some variables and designed an impossible airplane because they just didn't know what those variables actually meant.
Additionally, the guys building and maintaining the stuff you design might treat you better and have more respect for you if you have some common sense and are at least familiar with what they're doing, rather than being an "intellectual" who's afraid to work with his hands. And bonus points if you're actually good at it.
"But regarding your other mechanical skills: did you not learn tool-skills in college? We had to learn all sorts of tools (bandsaw, lathes, milling machines, torque-wrench, drill press, CNC machining, injection molding) various design projects and I figured the curricula at other engineering schools would be similar."
I just finished my aerospace engineering degree at Georgia Tech. The only time we ever used tools was during a single fluids lab, to change out the test articles. The program is heavily geared towards preparing you for graduate school, in controls, fluids/thermodynamics, or structures. There is very little focus on real-world engineering; it's almost all theoretical. People go the entire program and still don't understand anything about airplanes or spacecraft; all they know is a bunch of formulae and equations. The department has a machine shop, but it's forbidden except to a very special few working on things like autonomous UAVs.
I don't think this attitude is as prevalent in other departments; for example, the ME program has a few classes where they actually have to build things. It's still pretty sad, though, considering how the school used to be; shop and manufacturing were major parts of the curriculum back then. For example, part of the electrical engineering course was designing and building an electric motor from scratch.
Most of my tool experience comes from my dad; I started helping him fix cars and household stuff from a young age, built model airplanes, and later on built a real one. Later, during one of my internships, I had the opportunity to work in a machine shop. I didn't get to use the mill or lathe, but I did try my hand at MIG welding and some other stuff, and was teaching the other interns and one of the electricians how to use the radial and band saws. One of the other interns didn't even know how to read a tape measure when he started... and his dad was a senior mechanic! That was probably the best summer I've had; there's something real satisfying about coming home all filthy after a good day's work. It was a special treat on the days I got so dirty that I needed to go home and take a shower during lunch, like the day we were welding outside in 110+ degree heat indices. Driving Catia all day just doesn't compare.
Hell, if it paid better, I'd say "the hell with engineering" and be a mechanic. Really, I'd like to fly corporate or flight test for NASA or a manufacturer, but I don't want to take on tens of thousands in loans and live in poverty for years to do it. I'll just build my own airplane.
Hubble is believed to be based on the same "chassis" as the contemporary US spy satellites (KH-11, I think). Those were launched on the larger Titan vehicles, and Hubble could have been as well, had the choice of launch vehicle not been dictated politically. US policy up until Challenger dictated that all US satellite launches (including commercial ones) would shift to the shuttle, in an attempt to justify the program and boost the flight rate closer to that originally projected, and so Hubble was adapted specifically for shuttle launch. After the accident, the policy was changed to only allow payloads that required the shuttle's capabilities. Hubble was too far along to be modified for conventional rocket launch (because the payload mounts in the shuttle bay transfer the loads differently than a conventional mount), so it remained as a shuttle payload, as did the Galileo, Megellan, and Ulysses probes.
It's true that the shuttle made subsequent repair missions easier. But to say that only the shuttle could have launched the missions listed above isn't.
It's more like the engineers got hamstrung by the Air Force and the beancounters. Original shuttle plans called for a fully-reuseable vehicle with a more robust thermal protection system. The beancounters promoted the half-disposable design we have now, claiming it would reduce costs, and contrived studies to show that it would be much more reliable than it actually turned out to be. They also screwed around with the budgeting, eventually causing even more cost overruns, delaying the development, and forcing compromises that made the vehicle less safe.
The Air Force wanted manned space capability, and offered to help pay for the development if they got some say in the design and were allowed use of the shuttles when built. The USAF insisted on a larger payload bay (60ft long, as opposed to NASA's 40ft plan), which obviously made the vehicle larger. They also wanted the ability to land at the launch site after a single polar orbit, requiring 1000+ miles of crossrange. This led to the heavier delta wing and higher reentry heating loads.
We wound up with a vehicle that was larger, more expensive, and less safe than we should have. The engineers did the best they could under the political mandates they were given.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of United States obligations and securities. This authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056. Some of the counterfeited United States obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins; U.S. Treasury checks; Department of Agriculture food coupons and U.S. postage stamps."
I don't think the laptops cause any more isolation than there was before. A typical Georgia Tech computer lab is usually full of people zoned out on their own work (often with headphones on) or in small clusters of people. No real interation there, outside of the group work for projects and such.
The laptops just make it easier to get to computing resources. Instead of all of us having to cram into a lab, fight over computers, and try to get seating next to each other, we could go anywhere (dorm, other building, off campus, etc.), and plug in the laptops. They also let you get more stuff done between classes because you don't have to waste time walking to/from your dorm or the library. And then you have the AE department, which kicks undergrads off the lab computers at 11pm and locks them out of the room until 7am the next day, apparently because they just aren't important.
I know having the laptop was the single best investment I made in school. Yes, it's a distraction, but it's more than made up for when you can just whip it out and work on stuff for thirty mintues at a time, instead of having to wait till you go home for the day.
Liquor at wal-mart? Where do you live?
I wish I had mod points... "When I need something, I'll come looking for you" sums it up perfectly. I'm more than willing to click on the "sponsored links" section in a Google search and see if they have what I'm looking for, but I never, repeat NEVER, click on banner ads or anything like that.
Well, it's just as bad as saying "It's hot today, therefore it has to be global warming!" And it's even worse to say, "Ihotter today, therefore it has to be global warming; and because the climate is changing, man MUST be the cause!" A lot of people seem to live in denial of the fact that nature can change on its own.
AM and FM will probably be with us for a VERY long time, because their relative simplicity (compared to digital equipment) makes them cheap and easy to produce, and therefore still useable even in emergencies (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc).
"ASCII John Wayne Movie night on Adult Swim..."
That would absolutely kick ass. I'd get cable just to watch it.
If I remember right, the crew did know what they were carrying, but they didn't truly comprehend how powerful it would be until it went off.
In additionm, I'd like to point out that:
a) Had we invaded, there would have been many more deaths on both sides
b) Invasion plans called for peppering the landing areas and rest of Japan with nukes anyways
I remember reading about Japanese plans for an invasion... basically, everything down to little rowboats would be loaded with explosives and sent on suicide missions. There's a very real chance Japan would not have given up until the vast majority of the people had died.
I know; my point was that we could have diverted all the _funding_ to a Mars program and had a viable colony running there. And we wouldn't have so many people getting fscked over for smoking a little weed, when there are much worse things to worry about.
Anyone else find it ironic that Georgia, the good old state that still doesn't allow liquor sales on Sunday, is going to be leading production of ethanol?
And y'all know this how, exactly? Though I do agree, the WoD is a tremendous waste of resources. We could have been on Mars by now...
A picture like this isn't going to suddenly teach you how to make super-quiet submarines. It's been generally known for a while that the propellers look like that (7-8 scimitar-shaped blades). What this picture won't show you is the details--blade twist, cross-section, etc. In the same way that just looking at an airliner won't teach you how to make a good, low-drag supercritical wing, or looking at pictures of a Saturn V won't teach you how to build ballistic missiles (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/ 30/0215204), this picture isn't much help. The Navy is still not happy it was leaked, but it's still pretty far down on the "things that can be leaked" list.
Most people are barely able to solo by 20 hours, much less get signed off for a rating (even sport pilot).
And almost nobody does it in 40 hours these days. Most take at least 50-60 before they're ready for the checkride.
Remember, in the air, you can't just pull over; you have to keep flying the airplane till you've landed and stopped. You have an extra dimension to worry about, more things can go wrong, and there are so many more interesting ways of losing control.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more people pursuing flying, even just as a hobby; but while many out there don't do it because they wrongly believe it's too expensive or they just don't know about the opportunity, there are many others out there who just couldn't handle it. Driving seems to be pushing their limits already.
I'd say there's a conceptual bug, of the "if your engine quits you're dead" kind. Every plane I've flown has the ability to glide (at least a little bit) after the engine dies. This thing will drop like the proverbial brick.
How is that "not staying competitive" in the marketplace? If you're talking about gobbling up market share, then I guess he might be losing out on getting more contracts. But why does it matter how hard his employees work if they're happy with their pay, the company's making a profit, and they get steady business? I know if I'm looking for consultants to do $task for a fixed amount, I'm not going to care how much work said consultants do per week, or whether they're utilizing their resources near capacity, as long as the job gets done.
And, I doubt he has to worry about stockholders that are always looking for growth and bigger profits. "Good enough" FTW.
I should have been more specific... maybe saying can't find anything" because I don't know where to look. I'm used to the windows directory system (though whoever thought of the registry ought to have their dangly bits forcefully removed), and I don't like change. I've learned to work in the windows paradigm, and I like being able to giBut there are still many little things that bug me:
Closing all windows associated with a program should quit the program, not leave it running in the background. I'd say that's more intuitive than command-Q.
No simple right click. Yeah, you can hold down another button, or do some finger-dance on the touchpad... but why can't there be two plain-old buttons? Hell, give me a bunch of buttons.
The common menu bar at the top. I much prefer menu bars in the individual windows.
Office on a Mac (at least the version she has, 2000 IIRC) is one of the most obfuscated and f'ed-up interfaces I've seen; it ranks right up there with Catia v4. Instead of sensible tool and menu bars across the top, there are all kinds of little windows floating around everywhere.
The bubbliness. I happen to like boring old gray and black.
Half the programs I use regularly (admittedly, most are games of a sort) just aren't available on anything but windows.
And about the regularly-crashing mac--it was OS X. I think my XP machine is as stable as her macs--very few full-blown crashes, though lots of CTD because of my own fooling around with stuff I probably shouldn't...
There's a reason students are taught more than just the stuff they will use directly in the future. We don't expect most adults to be able to derive physics equations or predict chemical reactions five or ten years down the road; we don't expect them to be able to do detailed calculations that they aren't using at work. We do, however, want them to learn the basics of how the world around them works, and want them to be able to exercise at least basic skepticism when presented with potentially misleading information.
For example:
We want them to grok the basics of physics, biology, and chemistry at least on a qualitative level, so that they will be able to pick out the obvious BS from the media and hollywood; or if they're sitting on jury duty, be able to understand expert testimony and not expect things to work like they do on TV shows (CSI et al).
We want them to have a basic grasp of what is physically possible so they don't start making unreasonable demands of engineers, scientists, and politicians.
We want them to have at least seen how genetics, cellular biology, photosynthesis, and all that work, so that when some snake-oil salesman comes along and spits out biobabble or hypes some new therapy or cure, the little BS light comes on in their head and tells them to be careful, or seek another opinion.
We want them to be able to understand the basics behind what their doctor is telling them, and therefore be able to make better-informed decisions about their health care.
We want them to understand why orbits work the way they do, and at least be shown Kepler's laws and all that, so they understand that astrology=crackpottery, and don't go making decisions based on it.
We want them to know how various machines and things work, and why, so that when they bring their car in because of a noise, they can figure out what the mechanic is telling them, or at least be able to go home, look it up, and understand it, and thereby be able to separate the BS from the plausible. You don't need to be able to explain on the spot how a car works, but you should hopefully be able to figure out the basics with a little research.
We're not trying to turn everyone into a scientist--we just want to instill some common sense and skepticism in people. And just maybe inspire some kid to pursue stuff further, since it's kinda hard to know about something and be interested in it if you don't even know it exists.
"You're one for three, in my experience. Hardware issues: yeah, I've had a few. But my Mac just never crashes."
I must be unlucky then. When we first started dating, my now-fiancee used to brag about how her iMac (and all the other macs her family used to own) never crashed or had problems. I somehow managed to kill it within five minutes of using that computer for the first time. I crash the laptop she replaced it with on a regular basis, too. I don't think my three-year-old XP machine has crashed much more than the macs.
I personally hate the mac interface; it's too bubbly and I can't find anything. I prefer the look and most (actual) features of XP set to the "classic" style. Now, MS could do a much better job with implementation and security and all that, but for the most part I like the interface.
"Such a simple feature! Why hasn't EVERY cell phone done this before (or yet)? "
Because then they (the phone companies) can't charge you airtime to listen to all of them. That's why they don't have a "skip" feature, or a "delete message without waiting till end" (at least that I can find).
It's not so much that they should learn because they're going to use it at work, but rather so that they're at least somewhat familiar with the process, which should give them a better understanding of their work. In the same vein, mechanical engineers should be at least vaguely familiar with machine shops and know how to use common hand tools. Aerospace engineers should take a flying lesson or two (or at least spend a few hours with a simulator) and have a qualitative understanding of how airplanes behave; if they're working at a production company, they should spend a couple weeks swinging wrenches or driving rivets. Civil engineers should spend some time at a construction site, pouring concrete or riveting or whatever. I've seen many engineers sit down, do a bunch of calculations, and triumphantly draw out this "perfect" part--only to have the machinist tell him flat-out that it is impossible to build. I saw a lot of guys doing all their calculations for their senior projects, and not realizing that they mixed up some variables and designed an impossible airplane because they just didn't know what those variables actually meant.
Additionally, the guys building and maintaining the stuff you design might treat you better and have more respect for you if you have some common sense and are at least familiar with what they're doing, rather than being an "intellectual" who's afraid to work with his hands. And bonus points if you're actually good at it.
"But regarding your other mechanical skills: did you not learn tool-skills in college? We had to learn all sorts of tools (bandsaw, lathes, milling machines, torque-wrench, drill press, CNC machining, injection molding) various design projects and I figured the curricula at other engineering schools would be similar."
I just finished my aerospace engineering degree at Georgia Tech. The only time we ever used tools was during a single fluids lab, to change out the test articles. The program is heavily geared towards preparing you for graduate school, in controls, fluids/thermodynamics, or structures. There is very little focus on real-world engineering; it's almost all theoretical. People go the entire program and still don't understand anything about airplanes or spacecraft; all they know is a bunch of formulae and equations. The department has a machine shop, but it's forbidden except to a very special few working on things like autonomous UAVs.
I don't think this attitude is as prevalent in other departments; for example, the ME program has a few classes where they actually have to build things. It's still pretty sad, though, considering how the school used to be; shop and manufacturing were major parts of the curriculum back then. For example, part of the electrical engineering course was designing and building an electric motor from scratch.
Most of my tool experience comes from my dad; I started helping him fix cars and household stuff from a young age, built model airplanes, and later on built a real one. Later, during one of my internships, I had the opportunity to work in a machine shop. I didn't get to use the mill or lathe, but I did try my hand at MIG welding and some other stuff, and was teaching the other interns and one of the electricians how to use the radial and band saws. One of the other interns didn't even know how to read a tape measure when he started... and his dad was a senior mechanic! That was probably the best summer I've had; there's something real satisfying about coming home all filthy after a good day's work. It was a special treat on the days I got so dirty that I needed to go home and take a shower during lunch, like the day we were welding outside in 110+ degree heat indices. Driving Catia all day just doesn't compare.
Hell, if it paid better, I'd say "the hell with engineering" and be a mechanic. Really, I'd like to fly corporate or flight test for NASA or a manufacturer, but I don't want to take on tens of thousands in loans and live in poverty for years to do it. I'll just build my own airplane.
Hubble is believed to be based on the same "chassis" as the contemporary US spy satellites (KH-11, I think). Those were launched on the larger Titan vehicles, and Hubble could have been as well, had the choice of launch vehicle not been dictated politically. US policy up until Challenger dictated that all US satellite launches (including commercial ones) would shift to the shuttle, in an attempt to justify the program and boost the flight rate closer to that originally projected, and so Hubble was adapted specifically for shuttle launch. After the accident, the policy was changed to only allow payloads that required the shuttle's capabilities. Hubble was too far along to be modified for conventional rocket launch (because the payload mounts in the shuttle bay transfer the loads differently than a conventional mount), so it remained as a shuttle payload, as did the Galileo, Megellan, and Ulysses probes.
It's true that the shuttle made subsequent repair missions easier. But to say that only the shuttle could have launched the missions listed above isn't.
It's more like the engineers got hamstrung by the Air Force and the beancounters. Original shuttle plans called for a fully-reuseable vehicle with a more robust thermal protection system. The beancounters promoted the half-disposable design we have now, claiming it would reduce costs, and contrived studies to show that it would be much more reliable than it actually turned out to be. They also screwed around with the budgeting, eventually causing even more cost overruns, delaying the development, and forcing compromises that made the vehicle less safe.
The Air Force wanted manned space capability, and offered to help pay for the development if they got some say in the design and were allowed use of the shuttles when built. The USAF insisted on a larger payload bay (60ft long, as opposed to NASA's 40ft plan), which obviously made the vehicle larger. They also wanted the ability to land at the launch site after a single polar orbit, requiring 1000+ miles of crossrange. This led to the heavier delta wing and higher reentry heating loads.
We wound up with a vehicle that was larger, more expensive, and less safe than we should have. The engineers did the best they could under the political mandates they were given.