Re: Space shuttles carry two tons of lead blocks to compensate for design error


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dMOdnXpxt-xYHN3UnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"jonathan" <Home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n7_%k.6577$n_5.4890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4v-dne1hF5n4aKLUnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This has been debunked already.


I believe the X-33 was cancelled for political purposes, to allow Lockheed
et al to replace it with a long term very expensive moon shot.
Bush and Lockheed have been sleeping with each other since
Bush was a governor. I don't trust the decision to cancel the
X-33 at all, it smells.


Do you still believe in Santa Claus?


I think I can win that debate, the X-33 that is, not ol' Santa.

It was cancelled ...when was that? Oh yes, March 2001
just ...weeks... after Bush took office. Decades of effort
from the 70's on with various attempts at reusable space
planes flushed. And by a President in bed with Lockheed.

Are you that naive???

"The decision to terminate both X-33 and X-34 were made internally by NASA
and were not a White House decision, Stephenson said."

Right!


"McCurdy said NASA was only $8 million away from fixing the problem with the
vehicle's hydrogen fuel tank.

"The airframe was fine. The engines were running through their tests fairly
well. It would have been one-half the weight of the shuttle and you wouldn't
have had an external fuel tank or tiles," McCurdy said of the X-33."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/shuttle02043.xml






Also, please do not post articles in their entirety, it violates copyright
law.


I keep hearing this, but it's just not true in this context.
Unless I go out and make money somehow with that article
there's nothing wrong with using it in usenet conversations.


Yes there is.


The fair use doctrine is clear concerning non-commercial uses.

"In determining the "purpose and character of the use," courts also
consider whether the use is commercial or nonprofit.
"The crux of the profit/non-profit distinction is.whether the user
stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material
without paying the customary price."

"However, "a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential
market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be
prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create.
" See Sony, 464 U.S. at 450."
http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues


"Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine
whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use."
These factors are as follows:"

1.. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2.. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

"Fourth Factor (effect on potential market for protected work): Finally, the
fourth factor should be considered in our example. Courts have stated that this
is the most important factor in the fair use analysis"


"The four factors are split. However, courts would generally review this
analysis
and determine that, on the whole, the four factors weigh toward a finding
of fair use."
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html


A copyright holder must prove he lost money by the use
of his work. It's /absurd/ to think a usenet conversation would
rise to that level in any court. I doubt you can find even
a single case of a usenet speaker being successfully sued.

Besides, if copyright laws were to become too powerful, it would
merely force more to post anonymously, which is very easy.
Making the internet a true free-for-all.

Censors can't win...anymore.




This is speech, not broadcasting.

The US Supreme Court was very clear on that in their historic decision
which defined the legal character of the internet. In Reno v ACLU, the
court ruled that as the most mass participatory communication medium
known, internet conversations deserved the very highest level of
First Amendment protection.

While that may be true, it does not protect wholesale copying of material from
other sources.





Again, you're completely misreading the court's decision here.
In fact I'm not even sure how you can get to here from the decision.


Quotes from the decision

"From the publishers' point of view, it constitutes a vast platform from which
to address and hear from a world wide audience of millions of readers, viewers,
researchers, and buyers. [n.9] Publishers may either make their material
available
to the entire pool of Internet users, or confine access to a selected group,
such
as those willing to pay for the privilege."

"Judge Dalzell's review of "the special attributes of Internet communication"
disclosed by the evidence convinced him that the First Amendment denies Congress
the power to regulate the content of protected speech on the Internet. Id., at
867. His opinion explained at length why he believed the Act would abridge
significant protected speech, particularly by noncommercial speakers, while
"[p]erversely, commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected."
Id., at 879. ...and concluded that the Internet--as "the most participatory
form
of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883--is entitled to "the highest
protection
from governmental intrusion," ibid. [n.30"


Usenet conversations are protected speech.


So, if a court were to weigh the four criteria, the only one of the four
criteria violated would be the use of the entire work. But since the
other three favor fair use, usenet conversations would easily pass
the fair use test.

And.....

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,
explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html


A newspaper article states facts...not covered.








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Personal Firewalls
    ... automatically report abuse to ISP's and to the DShield.org web site. ... BlackICE PC Protection ... malicious activity in both applications and Internet protocols. ... Freedom Personal Firewall ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • IL The law didnt save her
    ... She tried a court order. ... But Michael Giroux ... protections to domestic violence victims, ... violates an order of protection, the person is supposed to face legal ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: In child porn case, a digital dilemma
    ... is asking a U.S. District Court in Vermont to order a man to type ... incriminating him; the defendant still was never forced to actually ...  And why should only children have this protection? ... taxes, my wife, my sister, my friends, ALL pay taxes!!! ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Making the Internet safe for kids
    ... Gov backs kid protection plan ... The new UK Council for Child Internet Safety will police the ... It has been set up in response to a report by Dr Tanya Byron into how ... others still said parents had to take responsibility. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Text of Second Order of Protection against Polgar and Truong
    ... RESPONDENT MOTHER MAY NOT INTERFERE OR DENY ... WRITTEN IN THE DIVORCE ORDER OR FAMILY COURT ORDER. ... It is further ordered that this Temporary Order Of Protection shall ... Federal law provides that this order must be honored and enforced by ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)