Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Not just contract stupid (Score 1) 200

I used to work for NASA. You are totally wrong about the need for "gee whiz flashy programs". NASA lives or dies by its ability to deliver jobs and contract $ to states and Congressional districts. Furthermore, NASA and the space industry (the big guys like LockMar etc.) are joined at the hip. I remember procurement-sensitive meetings at NASA where NASA managers with lots of responsibility would say, "can I bring so-and-so (their pet contractor) to the meeting?" The reason is that the contractors, at least in the human exploration side of NASA, do most of the hard technical work. They will close out these contractors and it will also be the end of career for many NASA people who don't have the right stuff for whatever comes next. These changes in NASA are really at heart a local jobs issue. Regarding "placate various legislators": no, you are definitely not paranoid! Look where the NASA Centers are located. They were deliberately place in southern states during Apollo to woo those states to the Democrat side. It didn't work all that well. But now you have these government centers in places where they provide a disproportionate amount of state revenue and jobs for the region. OF COURSE THIS IS POLITICAL. Any change to the work that NASA does, and which NASA Center gets the work, directly affects the fortunes of one state versus another, which affects the direction of NASA as a whole. Expect to see a lot of high and mighty words from Senators and Representatives about what is right for NASA, but what they are really talking about is jobs and total contract $ for their political domain. That's all it is. That is their motivation. Its plain as daylight. Nobody is Congress plans for the long term of NASA unless it is spelled out in terms for jobs and $.

Comment Re:The way to stop it... (Score 1) 85

You don't need a brand to run a business model, in certain segments. Lonely, desperate men with no self esteem are sitting ducks for an anonymous promise of cheap, easy, self-medicated improvement.

Your other point is well made - at the moment, law enforcement can't legally respond to a spam email, pay for the product, and then follow the money trail. There are sound legal reasons for this but I reckon there is a good case for narrow legislation to deal with this specific problem. The answer isn't educating users: at the end of the day, you need a certain IQ level to recognise a given example of spam, and for any given IQ level, there will be a certain percentage of the population below that, no matter what you do to try and raise their awareness.

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley