But as long as its permitted that is. It would become quite painfull when a companies small print declares that providing incorrect data means that they are not obliged to uphold their part of the deal, while you loose your payment as reembursement for any expenses made to rectify it.
Companies would never do that. First, if I provide accurate shipping info they cannot legally charge my card and not ship the product. Companies really, really want your money, and they'll almost always bend their rules to get it and make sure you come back to buy more. Remember when Radio Shack used to always insist on you giving them your phone number at the checkout? I just never did, and the cashiers who were adamant about it backed down pretty quickly when I just dropped everything and they realized I was going to leave the store. They did away with that "requirement" a couple years back, too.
Companies that piss off their customers or who don't deliver when accurate delivery info is given won't be around very long, trust me.
What if the company is supposed to send you some data via email, and the message was handled as spam and rejected by your server?
On the rare occassion you need to get info back (say you're buying software and need an activation code), use a disposable e-mail (and sign up for that using fake info!). When you get the information you need, eliminate the e-mail account. Your privacy and true e-mail address is secure.
Shopping online, I pretty much never give out my real phone and e-mail--if you do, you're just asking for spam and telemarketing calls. Oddly enough, I almost get none! Just give your credit card info and correct address (nobody much bothers with junk snail-mail anymore), take down the confirmation number from the purchase, and you're set! If the package doesn't arrive when it's supposed to, YOU call THEM with the confirmation number and see what's up. I've always done this over the years and never had a problem occur. You never become an advertisement vector for them, and the most abuse-able forms of your personal information are kept private.
Heck, for sites and services that demand stuff like birth dates, or that ask for answers to private questions for security reasons, always use fake info that you'll remember. What is my mother's maiden name? Smellypoo, of course!
It's so easy, I can't believe everyone doesn't do this.
The star is only about 47%-56% enriched as our Sun in elements heavier than hydrogen, so it stands to reason that any planets that formed around the star are similarly deficient in heavy elements/metals. See the following web page about the star, but keep in mind it has not been updated with this latest planetary information:
I am not an astrophysicist, but there is some good information at the following link regarding the Alpha Centauri system (which is basically a dual-star system if you discount the temporary incursion of the Proxima Centauri red dwarf star):
Seems the most important factor is not the duration of energy that two stars give, but whether liquid water can exist. Even though Alpha Centauri A and B range between 11 and 35 AU from each other, habitable planets that have liquid water could exist within one or two AU of each star (both stars even have decent light for photosynthesis to occur), and planetary orbits would be stable within a few AU of each star. Granted, there might be long time periods when you don't get a "night" because there are stars on either side of you, but I think that would just be a matter of whatever life arose there adapting to conditions.
Epsilon Eridani?!?!
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Looking at the nearest star systems for a decent system to visit or colonize, it is a tough call. There are only 7 star systems within 10 light years of ours. Four of those (Wolf 359 at 7.8 light years, Lalande 21185 at 8.3 light years, Luyten 726-8 A and UV Ceti at 8.7 light years, and Ross 154 at 9.7 light years) are red dwarf flare stares, which produce very little heat and emit frequent (hourly, daily, monthly) extremely high radiation flares that would kill any known living creatures close enough to derive energy or warmth from them. Also, the red light from these stars would not be conducive to photosynthesis for plants as we know them.
One near star system (Sirius A and Sirius B at 8.6 light years) seems a bit more promising. Although the system is fabulously more rich in heavy elements (metals, etc.) than our own star system (or any other in the area), Sirus B went nova a couple hundred million years ago and probably sterilized any nice planetary systems of atmospheres, water, or life (that's an educated guess, but . ..). Also, at 8.6 light years away, it is quite far.
Barnard's Star (at 6 light years) is a red dwarf, but not a flaring one. It's one of the oldest systems in the area, and quite calm. Of course, as a red dwarf it puts out little energy. Still, at the second closest star system it might be a potential place to visit or find rocky planets around.
The last and most promising star system within 10 light years is actually the closest--Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, and Proxima Centauri at 4.2-4.36 light years. Proxima is a red dwarf, and a flaming/flaring one, but is far away (one-fifth of a light year) from the other two stars and is therefore negligible. The other two are yellow or orange stars, a bit less or a bit more powerful than our Sun, with good light for photosynthesis. Although a dual-star system, planets within 2 AU of either star (about the distance from the Sun to the Asteriod Belt past Mars) would not greatly be affected by the gravity of the other star. Liquid water could exist within about the orbit radius of Venus for the smaller star, or Earth to Mars for the larger star. The system has twice the heavy element content of our own system.
At 4.36 light years, and the closest neighbor we have, why not try going there instead of Epsilon Eridani at 10.5 light years? You'd save well over half the time, whatever method you used to get there! G-forces aside, if you could average 10% the speed of light, it'd take about 50 years one way.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies would never do that. First, if I provide accurate shipping info they cannot legally charge my card and not ship the product. Companies really, really want your money, and they'll almost always bend their rules to get it and make sure you come back to buy more. Remember when Radio Shack used to always insist on you giving them your phone number at the checkout? I just never did, and the cashiers who were adamant about it backed down pretty quickly when I just dropped everything and they realized I was going to leave the store. They did away with that "requirement" a couple years back, too.
Companies that piss off their customers or who don't deliver when accurate delivery info is given won't be around very long, trust me.
On the rare occassion you need to get info back (say you're buying software and need an activation code), use a disposable e-mail (and sign up for that using fake info!). When you get the information you need, eliminate the e-mail account. Your privacy and true e-mail address is secure.
Shopping online, I pretty much never give out my real phone and e-mail--if you do, you're just asking for spam and telemarketing calls. Oddly enough, I almost get none! Just give your credit card info and correct address (nobody much bothers with junk snail-mail anymore), take down the confirmation number from the purchase, and you're set! If the package doesn't arrive when it's supposed to, YOU call THEM with the confirmation number and see what's up. I've always done this over the years and never had a problem occur. You never become an advertisement vector for them, and the most abuse-able forms of your personal information are kept private.
Heck, for sites and services that demand stuff like birth dates, or that ask for answers to private questions for security reasons, always use fake info that you'll remember. What is my mother's maiden name? Smellypoo, of course!
It's so easy, I can't believe everyone doesn't do this.
The star is only about 47%-56% enriched as our Sun in elements heavier than hydrogen, so it stands to reason that any planets that formed around the star are similarly deficient in heavy elements/metals. See the following web page about the star, but keep in mind it has not been updated with this latest planetary information:
http://www.solstation.com/stars/gl581.htmI am not an astrophysicist, but there is some good information at the following link regarding the Alpha Centauri system (which is basically a dual-star system if you discount the temporary incursion of the Proxima Centauri red dwarf star):
http://www.solstation.com/stars/alp-cent3.htmSeems the most important factor is not the duration of energy that two stars give, but whether liquid water can exist. Even though Alpha Centauri A and B range between 11 and 35 AU from each other, habitable planets that have liquid water could exist within one or two AU of each star (both stars even have decent light for photosynthesis to occur), and planetary orbits would be stable within a few AU of each star. Granted, there might be long time periods when you don't get a "night" because there are stars on either side of you, but I think that would just be a matter of whatever life arose there adapting to conditions.
Looking at the nearest star systems for a decent system to visit or colonize, it is a tough call. There are only 7 star systems within 10 light years of ours. Four of those (Wolf 359 at 7.8 light years, Lalande 21185 at 8.3 light years, Luyten 726-8 A and UV Ceti at 8.7 light years, and Ross 154 at 9.7 light years) are red dwarf flare stares, which produce very little heat and emit frequent (hourly, daily, monthly) extremely high radiation flares that would kill any known living creatures close enough to derive energy or warmth from them. Also, the red light from these stars would not be conducive to photosynthesis for plants as we know them.
One near star system (Sirius A and Sirius B at 8.6 light years) seems a bit more promising. Although the system is fabulously more rich in heavy elements (metals, etc.) than our own star system (or any other in the area), Sirus B went nova a couple hundred million years ago and probably sterilized any nice planetary systems of atmospheres, water, or life (that's an educated guess, but . . .). Also, at 8.6 light years away, it is quite far.
Barnard's Star (at 6 light years) is a red dwarf, but not a flaring one. It's one of the oldest systems in the area, and quite calm. Of course, as a red dwarf it puts out little energy. Still, at the second closest star system it might be a potential place to visit or find rocky planets around.
The last and most promising star system within 10 light years is actually the closest--Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, and Proxima Centauri at 4.2-4.36 light years. Proxima is a red dwarf, and a flaming/flaring one, but is far away (one-fifth of a light year) from the other two stars and is therefore negligible. The other two are yellow or orange stars, a bit less or a bit more powerful than our Sun, with good light for photosynthesis. Although a dual-star system, planets within 2 AU of either star (about the distance from the Sun to the Asteriod Belt past Mars) would not greatly be affected by the gravity of the other star. Liquid water could exist within about the orbit radius of Venus for the smaller star, or Earth to Mars for the larger star. The system has twice the heavy element content of our own system.
At 4.36 light years, and the closest neighbor we have, why not try going there instead of Epsilon Eridani at 10.5 light years? You'd save well over half the time, whatever method you used to get there! G-forces aside, if you could average 10% the speed of light, it'd take about 50 years one way.