Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX Sues Valador For Defamation

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the If-you-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say dept.

Space 111

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like aerospace consulting firm Valador tried to bite off more than it can chew. After already having bagged lucrative 'safety review' contracts with SpaceX' competitors, it tried to sell its services to SpaceX as well. However, according to SpaceX' claims in a recent court filing, Valador tried to juice up their sales pitch by first spreading rumors at key NASA offices that SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is 'unsafe', and then generously offering its services to SpaceX to aid them with addressing any undeserved bias against them among NASA officials. In true California fashion (being the most litigious state of the nation), SpaceX is having none of that and is taking Valador to court for defamation, seeking damages identical to the value of the consulting contract Valador tried to sell to them." CT: It appears that the link in this story has disappeared. If you can find something better, post it.

cancel ×

111 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post - article is already dead (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496904)

Not Found The URL you requested could not be found.

Re:First post - article is already dead (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496936)

Well tumblr isn't exactly a place of journalistic excellence.

Re:First post - article is already dead (0)

kyle5t (1479639) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496988)

I heard a rumor that it actually exploded.

Re:First post - article is already dead (0)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497114)

I heard a rumor that the Falcon 9 hires illegal immigrants to choke it in the shower.

Re:First post - article is already dead (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497154)

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Falcon 7 [internationalhero.co.uk] .

Re:First post - article is already dead (2)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497340)

Ummm... Google has a cache [googleusercontent.com] .

Re:First post - article is already dead (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#36502160)

Not Found

The URL you requested could not be found.

That's what they want you to think. Conspiricy is everywhere!

Why the anti-litigation jab? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496954)

This seems like a clear cut cases of defamation. Intentionally spreading malicious rumors, and then offering to clean up those same rumors for a price is pretty low, and if Valador is guilty, they absolutely should be sued.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36496968)

Extortion, no?

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36496974)

and it's particularly delicious that they chose the amount of damages themselves.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498682)

Go for triple damages, and then ask th

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498702)

Go for triple damages, then ask them if they would like to work for you - at regular price.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36500404)

you should have gone for triple damaged posts :).

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (-1, Troll)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497038)

Well, I'll go help Valador from this vicious slander of SpaceX, and then I'll help artor3 with the terrible rumours on the internet that she's into child bestiality.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (-1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497098)

Not funny you are a sick sick little man.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497238)

Like most political conservatives, davester666 was born without a functioning sense of humor. Unable to tell a joke, or defend his irrational hatred of lawyers without "joking" about the perverse sexual practices that haunt him, davester666 is a pariah among normal people.

  But he's not without hope. Conservative Dishumor cannot be cured, but it can be treated. With time and effort, davester666 can begin to understand that people aren't laughing at Sarah Palin because they secretly hate her, and perhaps one day will successfully tell a joke without creeping out everyone in the room. Call today, and give generously.

    Dan Savage Humorlessness Institutional Treatments, inc.
  404 Abortion Street, Berkeley, Ca, third tent on the left, ask for Moonbow

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497050)

Intentionally spreading malicious rumors, and then offering to clean up those same rumors for a price is pretty low

That's not "low". The term you're looking for is "protection racket".

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497358)

No, a protection racket would be threatening to spread the rumors if they didn't pay. If anything, this is more akin to a ransom.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497384)

You sometimes have to beat up someone to show them you're serious.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497096)

From the summary:

In true California fashion (being the most litigious state of the nation),

Then how about this: These are the future rules for residing in California:

  1. All non-natives(a "native" is defined as a person who was born in California, with both parents being naturalized citizens of the U.S.A.), are to be immediately expelled. This includes you, Hemos.
  2. All non-native American military personnel stationed in California are not permitted to leave their base installation unless they live in designated off-base housing, and if so, are not permitted to leave a 20-mile radius between where they live and their duty station.
  3. All non-native, non-military residents must apply for a conditional two-year trainer permit, that is, they must be an accredited academic with a Ph. D, applying for a temporary residency, for the sole purpose of training natives. They will be prohibited from coming within 30 miles of California's coastline unless accompanied at all times by police escort.
  4. Persons who have been granted a conditional two-year trainer permit must leave the state, re-apply, and wait an additional four years before they are allowed to re-enter the state after their two years are over.
  5. California residency rules will be relaxed on a per-person basis for residents of the states of Oregon and Washington.
  6. Residents of Utah, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Massachusetts are prohibited in perpetuity from entering the State of California.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (3, Funny)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497214)

Only if all the Californians who have left must return to California within 90 days.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36498264)

Then how about this: These are the future rules for residing in California: ... [right wing fantasy]

It was Ayn Rand who proved that there was a profitable book market for right wing fantasy, such themes have been flourishing in fiction ever since.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36499032)

You forgot about allowing any illegal Latin American the right to go there as well.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (0)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 2 years ago | (#36500062)

...the State of California.

I think you mean the People's Republic of California. And as a Georgian, I have no issues with not being allowed in California, I really don't have any desire to visit or live there. Reciprocally, I don't want any Californians in Georgia, so you need to add a few laws restricting them from ever leaving the state.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#36500664)

Having lived in both states:

Georgia: Better weather, unless you're into winter sports. People are really racist, but otherwise friendlier.
California: More crowded in the living areas, but more empty in the open spaces, and a better variety of them. People are more creative, but there are a much higher number of mentally ill.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498048)

This seems like a clear cut cases of defamation. Intentionally spreading malicious rumors, and then offering to clean up those same rumors for a price is pretty low, and if Valador is guilty, they absolutely should be sued.

"That's a nice launch vehicle you've got there. It'd be a real pity if NASA were to believe that it tends to catch fire..."

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (3, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498050)

Low is a good word for it. This isn't business, it's like an ambulance running down people to make hospitals more profitable.

Re:Why the anti-litigation jab? (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499214)

The submitter's political slant, of course.

I disagree (0)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499440)

I challenge anyone to say that a tiny little compartment sitting on top of a gigantic tube of high combustible fuel which is intentionally ignited is actually safe!

Let's not forget additional issues such as the fact such as it being basically a cylinder with tiny little fits on its ass end being shot up at insane speeds into the extremely unfriendly atmosphere of the earth, later to then reenter at even more insane speeds that damn near engulfing the returning capsule with flames caused by drag against... AIR!!!

Oh... and if there's the slightest little leak while it's outside of the earth's atmosphere, pretty much everyone inside the capsule will be suffocating to death or being ripped into the vacuum of space.

Let's be blunt about this... the fucking thing is a death trap!

If they can figure out a way to launch the rocket using a non-combustible propellant, make it go a hell of a lot slower, put big enough fins on it to allow it to correct course at all times, and find a way of slowing it down so much that by the time it enters the atmosphere on return, there isn't a huge amount of drag produced. That would probably make it safer.... now let's work on how to get it from the atmosphere back to earth without it falling the entire way... that sounds dangerous too.

To suggest that this thing is anything other than unsafe would be lying.

To suggest that your company has the expertise to make something like this safe is false advertising on a criminal scale.

Re:I disagree (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499666)

I challenge anyone to say that a tiny little compartment sitting on top of a gigantic tube of high combustible fuel which is intentionally ignited is actually safe!

It's safe.

Re:I disagree (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36501294)

"Safe" is a relative term. Yes, going into space is dangerous. Yes there will be fatal accidents. Cars and airplanes have fatal accidents too. Space travel will always be more dangerous than cars or airplanes. But you can certainly be safer than the space shuttle - which is a very low bar to pass. And you can certainly be more or less safe than your competitors.

Everyone believes your product is crap... (2)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496960)

Everyone believes your product is crap...
... because we told them that.

You need better PR and management.
We can suggest a company.

lol

-AI

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36496976)

"Nice reputation you got there.

Be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497380)

I've got a few negative mod points left.
I'd hate to award them to you so... can you give me a "reason" not to?

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497564)

Why would you give him negative modpoints? (nevermind the fact that you've already posted and can't in fact do as you proposed). His post was short and funny, something that makes slashdot slashdot

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36497598)

Why would you give him negative modpoints? (nevermind the fact that you've already posted and can't in fact do as you proposed). His post was short and funny, something that makes slashdot slashdot

Wooooshhh... You so failed to get it.

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499832)

Wooooshhh... You so failed to get it.

Add 'woosh' to 'wrong' mods for the next version of Slashdot - the GP so deserves it.

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497364)

Look at the CEO - he does look like he had/is bacon

http://www.valador.com/message_from_kevin_mabie

add: captcha word: bacunt
wth?

Re:Everyone believes your product is crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36498620)

But what if it actually is crap [slashdot.org] ?

Original Article Text (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36496962)

SpaceX vs. Valador: The Price of Success

When I arrived at work this morning, I found this gem of news in my inbox. I have no personal knowledge of what happened and nothing to add to the article - but I think it pretty much speaks for itself:

Quote 1:

Early in June 2011, on behalf of Valador, Fragola attempted to obtain a consulting contract from SpaceX worth as much as $1 million. He claimed that SpaceX needed an ‘independent’ analysis of its rocket to bolster its reputation with NASA based on what he called an unfair ‘perception’ about SpaceX. SpaceX did not respond favorably to Fragola’s offer.

Quote 2:

Fragola sent this email to a NASA official on June 8: “I have just heard a rumor [] that the Falcon 9 experienced a double engine failure in the first stage and that the entire stage blew up just after the first stage separated.”

Quote 3:

“Fragola’s statements are blatantly false [] there was not ‘double-engine’ failure, nor even a single engine failure. The launch was broadcast by a camera on the Dragon spacecraft, which vividly showed the separation of the first stage - and no explosion occurred.”

Some of us are in this because we want to see humanity making children in space as soon as possible; others are because they want to line their pockets as much as possible. I’ll leave it up to you to decide who falls into which category.

Posted on Friday, June 17 2011. Tagged with: spaceSpaceX

Re:Original Article Text (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497060)

Some of us are in this because we want to see humanity making children in space

So... how much did the porn industry invest in SpaceX?

Re:Original Article Text (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497150)

Apparently not enough to get the SpaceX to change the fourth letter in its name.

Re:Original Article Text (2, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497318)

Some of us are in this because we want to see humanity making children in space

So... how much did the porn industry invest in SpaceX?

Only 1/3 of the necessary.. still 2 x-es to go.

Re:Original Article Text (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497368)

TFA didn't actually say that: the children phrase was apparently added by the GP poster... for some reason.

Re:Original Article Text (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498414)

Not true, the children phrase is in the google cached version as you can see for yourself here [googleusercontent.com] .

Re:Original Article Text (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499882)

Did you even check your own link? IT'S NOT THERE!

The question that springs to mind is (2)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497016)

Who the heck is Valador, and why do they think they have so much experience in space technologies that they can sell advices to other players in the field?

NASA doing that I could understand (I mean you know, they have nothing else to do these days, and if anybody knows about blowing space vehicles, it's them), but "Valador"?

Re:The question that springs to mind is (5, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497030)

Valador must be the aerospace consulting arm of Tropicanti & Gotti, LLC.

Re:The question that springs to mind is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497280)

Who the heck is Valador, and why do they think they have so much experience in space technologies that they can sell advices to other players in the field?

Their CEO probably watched too much TV and thought you could tag an "expert" label on a random bloke off the street and get away with it.

Or he thought: hey, we're not going to run a legitimate business, but a local Mafia office, so we won't be doing any real work anyway, capice?

Re:The question that springs to mind is (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497502)

I can't believe your comment was modded +3 solely on the basis that you find the name Valador funny. It's really not that funny. And "blowing space vehicles" ? What does that even mean?

Re:The question that springs to mind is (1)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498216)

Rockets perform better when their frames are low in stress. Having someone blow the vehicle before launch reduces the chance the rocket will go off prematurely, or fail completely.

Re:The question that springs to mind is (2)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498446)

Rockets perform better when their frames are low in stress. Having someone blow the vehicle before launch reduces the chance the rocket will go off prematurely, or fail completely.

You, sir, are in more dire need of a BJ than any other suborbital spacecraft in history.

Re:The question that springs to mind is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36500298)

He may be right. I had my first stage blown last night, and my frame is significantly less stressed than usual today. I highly recommend.

Re:The question that springs to mind is (1)

Whalou (721698) | more than 2 years ago | (#36497996)

Darth Valador.

Re:The question that springs to mind is (0)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498058)

Simple. Follow the money. Look for people with George Soros ties or other ties to the current thugocracy in Washington.

They wouldn't be so blatant about it if they didn't think they could pull it off: pay us off or you won't get government work because we have "friends".

Ex government employees should be barred from lobbying for at least 10 years.

MLB Jersey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497076)

Really interesting articles. IAuthentic mlb Jersey [nfljerseyhot.com] enjoyed reading it.I like
Cheap MLB Jersey [nfljerseyhot.com] !It is composed by menqiqinfljerseyhotcom 06.20.2011

Re:MLB Jersey (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498918)

Would somebody be so kind as to crack these spammers? Perhaps steal some money, or simply put in large fake orders so as to tie this idiot up?

California? Virginia. (3, Informative)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497106)

The lawsuit was brought in Virginia. http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/16/Space.pdf [courthousenews.com] ...

Re:California? Virginia. (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497196)

And the most litigious state in the nation is New Jersey.

Re:California? Virginia. (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498068)

Will that have an effect on the legislative landscape?

air jordan 2010 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497132)

Nikejordanlink is the most successful wholesaler store in recent year,you can find cheap and discount
nike air max 2011 [nikejordanlink.com] cheap nike shox torch
  nike shox torch [nikejordanlink.com] cheap air jordan 2010
air jordan 2010 [nikejordanlink.com] air jordan shoes 2010
jordan retro shoes [nikejordanlink.com] jordan retro 1 shoes air jordan shoes 2010
new jordan shoes 2010 [nikejordanlink.com]
nike air max 2011 mens shoes [nikejordanlink.com] cheap nike shox torch
  jordan retro 1 shoes [nikejordanlink.com] cheap air jordan 2010
nike free mens shoes [nikejordanlink.com] air jordan shoes 2010 nike free womens shoes [nikejordanlink.com] air jordan shoes 2010 air jordan 2010 shoes [nikejordanlink.com] .If you are interested in this store please don't hesitate to visit us :http://www.nikejordanlink.com.

Very fast lawyers (3, Informative)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497144)

First, note that all we have so far is an allegation. Although we tend to like SpaceX around here, Valador are currently only accused scum, not confirmed scum.

Second, the alleged defamation occurred on June 8 2011. courthousenews.com reports on the suit on June 16. So that is offence to suit in about a week!

Re:Very fast lawyers (2)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497288)

So what? You think SpaceX should wait till the next moon landing?

Re:Very fast lawyers (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497394)

If SpaceX is convinced Valador was using something akin to extortion tactics on them, they should act immediately in order to stop the lies from spreading any further. And why would they wait anyway?

Re:Very fast lawyers (1)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498582)

I suppose getting their lawyers to sit together, see if they can make a case of available evidence and put the documents for the court together can take some time. A week perhaps?

Re:Very fast lawyers (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498470)

First, note that all we have so far is an allegation. Although we tend to like SpaceX around here, Valador are currently only accused scum, not confirmed scum.

Second, the alleged defamation occurred on June 8 2011. courthousenews.com reports on the suit on June 16. So that is offence to suit in about a week!

Civil system seems to move fast and the whole process is greased with money. A criminal case wouldn't see the courts for a year or more.

Re:Very fast lawyers (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498600)

Civil system seems to move fast and the whole process is greased with money. A criminal case wouldn't see the courts for a year or more.

Isn't filing suit more of a parallel to arrest in the criminal courts? That generally happens as soon as incriminating evidence is found.

Re:Very fast lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36499702)

Wow. It's really weird to see the name of the tiny company you've worked for featured on Slashdot, ESPECIALLY for an article like this!

Let me say this, at least. I really doubt they'd do anything this blatantly stupid. I mean, yes, they're a contractor, sometimes they appear a little shady. Goes along with being a small business contractor, from what I've seen. And I've only worked with their other business, the infosec side. That said, if the CEO knew something like this was going on, he'd kick the ass of anyone involved. He's got a huge temper, is an in-your-face kinda guy, and has a strong sense of what's right.

In short, if SpaceX is right, and they very well might be, take it out on the guy who did wrong. They treated me well, I'd hate to see them lose out because of an idiot middle manager.

But Valador is correct. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499962)

The Falcon 9 isn't safe. But then again I doubt that any rocket will ever be "safe". It will be a long time before you strap a human into any thing that then goes from 0 to 18,000+ MPH and well over 100 miles up in anything that a reasonable person calls safe. Space travel is not safe or fool proof. Heck the only reason that we can strap people in to aluminum tubes and fly them around at 500+mph and 7 plus miles up and make it reasonable safe is around 100 years of mistakes and many many flights.
Of course Valador is using the oldest trick in the book. The best lie starts with a truth. I doubt that SpaceX would take unnecessary risks. If they need a test pilot I am willing to go. But as Q said in Star Trek
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughtta go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid."
The Falcon 9 isn't safe, being safe is for children. Adults make a trade off between the risks and the befits and then takes those risks.

Re:But Valador is correct. (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36501242)

I thought the Falcon 9 was intended for heavy lift, not for human transport?

Re:But Valador is correct. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36501528)

Yes and no. Yes it is intended for medium and heavy lift but it is also man rated like the Titan III was and the Saturn V.
You know they flew the Dragon Capsule on it didn't you? They Titan III was supposed to be used for the X-20 and the MOLE as well as other projects. It was supposed to replace the Saturn Ib for a lot of manned leo missions. It could have been used to resupply are even expand Skylab had it been funded.
The Saturn V flew a few times unmanned and was used to launch Skylab.
I still wonder what would have happened if we had kept improving that Saturn line like the Russians did with their Soyuz launchers.

Let's see the issues. (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36502206)

Titan III was never man-rated. Gemini-Titan was a Titan II derivative.
I don't believe that Falcon9 has been man-rated yet.

Re:Let's see the issues. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36502528)

I am pretty sure that TitanIIIc was actually man rated or was in the process to be. http://www.airliners.net/uf/44100/phpX0sCIF.jpeg [airliners.net]
Is a picture of it flying the one and only Gemini/MOLE test fight. Since it was supposed to be manned I would say it was manned rated or well on the way to be.
The Falcon9 was built to be man rated from the start has it passed yet? I am not sure about that but that is the intention.

Re:Let's see the issues. (1)

Coz (178857) | more than 2 years ago | (#36502710)

Correct. Falcon 9 was designed to be man-rated, but SpaceX isn't spending the money to jump through NASA's hoops until they have more of a hope of a contract for human launch services. Man rating is a high enough hurdle that LM and Boeing have refrained from man rating the Delta IV or Atlas V on their own nickels.

patience (-1, Offtopic)

kathyxu (2286144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497224)

Your blog is loading so slow, but anywayit has some nice stuff : ) I will come back and check out more stuff later. take care fellas Gucci outlet [gucciofoutlet.com]

Re:patience (-1, Offtopic)

kathyxu (2286144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497226)

Gucci is a Italy brands, represented the fashion trend, noble, temperament. discount Gucci handbags [gucciofoutlet.com] get latest Collection ara available,such as satchel,shoulder ,waist bags. New Gucci handbags [gucciofoutlet.com] are discount and added on a daily basis,what are you waiting?

California being the "most litigious state" (2, Insightful)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497260)

Um, last time I looked California is the most populous state in the nation. This submitter claim is as bogus as those who try to claim the 9th district court is somehow biased because it decides more cases of X (fill in bias here), while ignoring that it represents most states west of the rockies.

Full quote from interestingly slanted summary:

In true California fashion (being the most litigious state of the nation)

Irony? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499810)

Was TFS trying to be ironically defamatory towards California?

Sicilian connection (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497262)

So is Valador run by Sicilians or people from New Jersey? Sounds like they got the protectionism racket nicely transformed for tech subcontracting work.

Testing their mettel? (3, Funny)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497454)

"The Falcon 9 tank walls and domes are made from aluminum lithium alloy."

"What's an Aluminum falcon"?

Re:Testing their mettel? (2)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497490)

Bravo. Bravo. :) Right after the also excellent, "What do you mean, 'They blew it up'? Who's "They"?!"

Yay - Space Whores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497488)

... investing in lawyers, the only growth industry in the US. The MIC is, of course, a destruction industry.

Re:Yay - Space Whores (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498474)

... investing in lawyers, the only growth industry in the US. The MIC is, of course, a destruction industry.

Not the only growth industry in the US. Figure out a way to grow medical marijuana in space and you'd have a triple whammy of profit.

Off with their heads (2)

JadedIdealist (2057592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36497728)

If the other companies using valador have any sense they will fire them immediately and have nothing more to do with them.

Re:Off with their heads (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498488)

If the other companies using valador have any sense they will fire them immediately and have nothing more to do with them.

This is a very good point. After being caught up in a racket like this, what do you think their seal of recommendation is worth now?

Mafioso? No, a veteran! (3, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#36497790)

Many of the comments here question the ethics of Valador. Here's an interesting tidbit: the CEO, Kevin Mabie, is a U.S. military veteran, disabled in the line of duty. Check this out. [valador.com] . Which raises two questions:

1) How dare you people dishonor a distinguished military veteran, who lost his ... something ... defending your freedoms? Don't you realize that the moment he was discharged from active duty, he instantly became a paragon of virtue, unable to lie, cheat, or defraud, and thus this accusation by SpaceX is not only baseless, but treasonous?

2) How difficult is it to fake this sort of thing [osd.mil] ? And does anyone in the Slashdot community care enough to go the extra mile to check his credentials, and possibly make some *real* news?

Re:Mafioso? No, a veteran! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36497880)

Re:Mafioso? No, a veteran! (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498486)

Makes sense.
Because he was a backseat driver in an aircraft and fell out of his bunk once too often he's free to employ as many defamatory, even criminal business practices as he wants...

Re:Mafioso? No, a veteran! (2)

Chaugnar (1983084) | more than 2 years ago | (#36499406)

I'm a veteran and my opinion is that Kevin Mabie is behaving criminally. Being that I'm a veteran that must mean I cannot be contradicted because by your own admission that would be treason.

Many of the comments here question the ethics of Valador. Here's an interesting tidbit: the CEO, Kevin Mabie, is a U.S. military veteran, disabled in the line of duty.

Re:Mafioso? No, a veteran! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36500080)

This isn't a defense of Valador, just trying to get people a fair-minded picture of how this stuff works.

People starting a business in this area generally have some cool idea and genuinely want to make something real and useful. They then get bogged down in trying to convince someone in the government with the authority to take action that they aren't yet another business with a cool sounding idea that can't actually deliver. If you aren't, at least on paper, woman owned, minority owned or veteran owned, forget about it, you simply won't get any contracts.

Many of the comments here question the ethics of Valador. Here's an interesting tidbit: the CEO, Kevin Mabie, is a U.S. military veteran, disabled in the line of duty. Check this out. [valador.com] . Which raises two questions:

1) How dare you people dishonor a distinguished military veteran, who lost his ... something ... defending your freedoms? Don't you realize that the moment he was discharged from active duty, he instantly became a paragon of virtue, unable to lie, cheat, or defraud, and thus this accusation by SpaceX is not only baseless, but treasonous?

2) How difficult is it to fake this sort of thing [osd.mil] ? And does anyone in the Slashdot community care enough to go the extra mile to check his credentials, and possibly make some *real* news?

Speaking as a veteran myself, though not disabled in any way:

1) Do keep in mind that most of that attitude is a reaction to the disgraceful treatment Veitnam vets got. People basically took their frustrations with US policy out on veterans who had, overwhelmingly, served honorably.

And, generally, you can question a veteran's honor as much as you like; you just haven't actually earned the right to be taken seriously.

2) VA doctors do physical exams to ensure that you have a legitimate disability. The biggest disconnect is that people assume that their common sense idea of disability is even remotely close to the medical definition of disability. I know a guy out on Crohn's, but people tend to think, "how is having to go the bathroom a lot a disability?!"

There's no good excuse for a fishing expedition, nor would justice be well served by such. My recommendation: let the lawsuit be settled on the merits and don't demean yourself in this way.

Re:Mafioso? No, a veteran! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36500762)

I'm sure LulzSec could fake that page if you asked them nicely

Sounds like an MS-SUN-SCO style operation (3, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#36498656)

In fact, I wonder if there is any tie from that guy back to L-Mart? These days L-Mart is working hard on hit jobs on SpaceX. They have done loads of lobbying jobs on SpaceX, trying to prevent them from even getting a CHANCE at a job, and now has [forbes.com] started an astroturfing 'journalists' [forbes.com] similar to MS's use of Rob Enderle against Linux and Android. Sadly, it means that SpaceX has had to waste time and money fighting not just Valador, but L-Mart's lobbyists [spacenews.com] and hitmen. [forbes.com]

There are now many companies that are fighting against all that Musk attempts to do. He really is shaking up the Global industries as he decides to go into them.

Re:Sounds like an MS-SUN-SCO style operation (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36501306)

For those who have never heard that abbreviation (and I hadn't), "L-Mart" is apparently short for Lockheed Martin.

Re:Sounds like an MS-SUN-SCO style operation (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36502248)

I'd never hear L-Mart. My company subbed to them for a while, and I always heard it as "Lock-Mart"

What fucking moron wrote the intro paragraph? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36499066)

"In true California fashion (being the most litigious state of the nation)"
WTF does that mean? That if you are defamed you wouldn't actually sue unless your company was based in California, because we all know that suing liars is a 'California' thing?

re:mafiodo retardo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36499328)

I'm a military veteran and I say the guy is a dirt bag. Would you dare to contradict me? Because by your own admission that would be tantamount to treason.

Yelp? (1)

roa_runner2 (2287662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36500742)

Sounds like Yelp's business model...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>