You need to pay attention to the question, which was 'what should I look at in the spring'
Jupiter will not be a practical target for this particular class since it will rise well after midnight, and in fact closer to morning twilight. The Pleadies will be nearly in conjunction with the sun during late spring, as will the orion nebula. If you will notice, the things that were mentioned as potential targets were objects that will be visible at the specific time of the class. Otherwise, I surely would have mentioned the LMC and SMC satellite galaxies of our own. But it doesnt make much sense to name off every interesting object in the sky, just the ones that are relevant to the question.
Your suggestions about light pollution are good though, and it should certainly be taught in any astronomy class.
Insightful? I think not. And here's why!
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is in the first amendment, yes.
But, then you wrote this;
And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...
Except for the fact that if you read the law, you would see there is no contradiction at all. For the law explicitly states that this applies to groups who advocate violence to their grievances.
So, you see, this law does not violate the first amendment. It only violates the version you have constructed in your imagination, based on the summary which leaves out that rather important detail.
Venus will become an evening star in the next few months. If your observations are over a few weeks, it would be an excellent evening target as it will go through its phases, much like our own moon does. If the observations are around twilight, you can even have them attempt to see Venus while the sun is still up by looking in the same part of the sky when the sun is up. It gets harder with age(sigh) but I remember easily being able to do it when I was around the age of grade 9.
The Moon focus on the shadow line, or a time when its around 1 week bfore a full moon, as the terminator(shadow) will show excellent surface relief of features.
Jupiter will be probably be only an early morning target during that time, so thats probably out.
Saturn isnt going to be a very good target, other than to show it as a planet, because it is in the part of its orbit where the rings are tilted almost edge on to earth.
Globular Clusters M13 in Hercules would be an excellent target.
Planetary Nebula The 'ring nebula' in the constellation Lyra will be a excellent target for evening viewing, if its late enough, as from most locations in the US it appears almost at the zenith
Double Stars Even through a 4" scope you can see some amazing color contrasts. Albireo in the constellation Cygnus is one of the best, with one red, one blue star.
Also, you can go in to some detail about the different types of telescopes, and their functions.
But most importantly, focus on the history of Astronomy itself. There is a rich history over thousands of years of astronomers that have taken us all the way to where we are now, and we wouldnt be here without those giants of the past; Gallileo Gallelie, Nikolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Charles Messier(hes the 'M' in all those objects...M13, M31, etc), Edwin Hubble, Edmund Halley.
I use to spend march-april out there quite a bit about a decade ago. In fact one of the years was so wet that there was a shallow lake almost the entire length of the valley, that you could walk across and have it come up to your knees at its deepest point. In another year, the southern part(past badwater) was erupting in colorful flower blooms so vast they covered entire mountainsides, and had been unseen for decades to that extent.
Also Zabriskie point, in death valley, has LOTS of sheltered locations out of the sun, and out of any possible floods(you would need about a 30ft wall of water for that to happen). Granted, I dont think anyone would go running up and down the sand dunes at noon, but maybe thats just me.
It really is a nice, beautiful place, that I wish I visited as often as I used to.
People take but they also must contribute back or else the system will fail. It is easy for most people because everything on P2P is "free"
Yes, just like it was with broadcast TV and Radio. This is how the vast majority of consumers are accustomed to acquiring their music. Which is why I used that upthread in a previous example.
Theres nothing wrong at all with compensating the end user for this distribution, as a form of this compensation paid out for wider distribution simply came one level up the supply chain previously(kick-backs, payola, etc). And that is why I think that discounts would be a better method than outright cash payments. Even if you jack up the price(as would happen) and make the end user think they were getting a discount.
Consumers then decide if they think the extra benefit is worth the money and either pay for it or do without.
Thats exactly the point. There doesnt need to be a law made that says 'all content must be distributed this way'. If you do not want to provide digital copies of your work and deal with the hassles that come along with it, then dont. And do without the extra revenue that comes with a cost/benefit of some copies being distributed in a way other than your preferred one. And your example of sat radio is perfect, since their subscriber count has been dropping in favor of other alternatives(Pandora, streaming, etc). I personally had a sat radio subscription, and recently stopped it for the much cheaper Pandora route. So should there be a law that says sat radio is the only way to get that type of music?
But doubtless you think that is also an antiquated concept because you are not depriving anyone of anything (your neighbor still has their signal and the provider still has their shows to send out).
I said nothing of the sort. I am pointing out that new laws do not need to be made that favor an old business model, at the expense of a newer one.
I use Radiohead of an example of the concept. Not as an example of what all music should be like. Personally, Im not much of a fan of them.
I see the music industry continuing on, and in fact being better than its current form. But music in of itself is of little value, as you say. However, the people willing to pay for a live performance IS of value. But I fail to see why a cunsumer of music cant directly pay the band. Can you give an example of why that option doesnt work for all genres?
And I know your retort to that will be 'what about the people who cant attend a live event?' And to that I say, that every performer needs to follow in the path of a similar concept as radiohead.
There just isnt an excuse anymore to try and wall off your content and be a control freak about it(not you directly, you in general). The technology is freely available, thanks in part to the Open Source model you reference, and trying to pass laws to continue a business model because those involved seem to think its 'sacred', is not a productive option.
The shitty content stops, yes. And that day cant come soon enough. Just because you create something, doesnt mean you will automatically make money form it.
If its what people WANT to buy, they will. Its already been done, and its only going to continue.
And that is 100% acceptable to me. The market will decide. Either the torrent will die, or it will stay.
We dont need laws to regulate it. Thats just a sign of a bad business model. Would it make sense to have laws to regulate that you must buy one horse drawn carriage, even though this new thing called the automobile exists?
And it may be MY bias, but I find most of the 'business owners' who always harp how great the free market is, suddenly find themselves rushing to pass laws to protect them when the market decides against their interests, without thinking twice about those who are already using the new market model to run profitable businesses.
Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation, be it a discount or whatever form it needs to take. How about for every 100 people I distribute it to using my resources, I get 1% off the next purchase?
I pay, you pay. Those that get it for free, give it for free.
where did I say anything about distributing copyrighted works without a license?
Im not interested in your prejudices, which you just fully disclosed with that assumption. Im interested in the way distribution will be done going into the future. If theres no attempt at compensation given for the use of the individuals resources, then the odds of this idea going anywhere at all, are nill
Im sure everyone here knows your stance by now...but for those that dont, allow me to translate what you just said...
It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable(by me) distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely(at no charge to me), and effectively charge(I collect money from the freely given resources of others without compensation) at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.(except for the fact that you are 'stealing' others resources without compensating them)
Im sorry, but your business model is dying, thats why you have so much resistance to the current changes in the world. Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work. You are completely free to follow whatever path you want, but when you start advocating for everyone to only do business a certain way because thats the only way you personally can survive, we part ways.
Im not sure what your posting is trying to get across, as the GP didnt mention anything about his own TV viewing habits, they just presented an easy solution to someone who is whining about their own actions causing them discomfort.
If you are serious about not knowing why it is foolish, feel free to post under your user name instead of anonymous, when you are fully awake. If you have never been exposed to the workings of the legal system in the business world, it is understandable that you may not know the details.
I would be glad to lay out the legal reasons why it is foolish to initiate legal threats against a person without evidence, or the intention of backing them up in a court of law.
You can begin by reading about the legally binding consequences of a Declaratory Judgement as it relates to a poorly written Cease and Desist letter such as this.
Sometimes, though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish. If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent, you can always read the Foolish Cease and Desist letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago.
Obviously, the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats, that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved. I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information, never crossed their mind. In the years that have followed, tens of thousands of people have viewed that letter, and the company who wrote that has had its business practices laid out for everyone to see, and has become a running joke in the community.
But yes, in this case, the FCC probably has a little more professionalism and backbone, to see these sort of questions through.
The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grnland ("Greenland") in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
Do you think Hell, Michigan is named because its supposed to actually represent hell? Or maybe the real estate pimps of thousands of years ago, are exactly like now, when trailer parks are sometimes named 'Luxury Court'...
Its a good thing you arent a business person, or maybe you are since you have an uncanny ability to only see a short term time-horizon of your actions.
when would it be more profitable to pull that oil out of the ground?
a) when the market price of oil is $70/bbl... or
b) when the market price is $300/bbl
That idea suffers from a fatal flaw. It relies on 'someone else' fixing the problem. If you feel strongly about it, simply sign up for a google account, and 'disable' any results to a newscorp site yourself. If enough people do that, the same result will occur.
You JUST said you wanted it not to sell it one thread up. Now you say you want to sell it? Sorry, I dont make transactions with someone who changes the terms in the middle of the deal.
I choose not to deal with you, our needs are not satisfied by this transaction and I will deal with someone who will.
Based on his user name, comments about music hes created, and comments that he is not in the US. I wonder if THIS might be the company he is 'forced to take care of his employees' with?
Im not suggesting that it is owned by the publisher of these remarks, more digging would obviously be required before any boycott or other action was taken against this (possibly) innocent company.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to pay attention to the question, which was 'what should I look at in the spring'
Jupiter will not be a practical target for this particular class since it will rise well after midnight, and in fact closer to morning twilight. The Pleadies will be nearly in conjunction with the sun during late spring, as will the orion nebula. If you will notice, the things that were mentioned as potential targets were objects that will be visible at the specific time of the class. Otherwise, I surely would have mentioned the LMC and SMC satellite galaxies of our own. But it doesnt make much sense to name off every interesting object in the sky, just the ones that are relevant to the question.
Your suggestions about light pollution are good though, and it should certainly be taught in any astronomy class.
But, then you wrote this;
And it's exactly that ammendment which this law is blatantly contrary too...
Except for the fact that if you read the law, you would see there is no contradiction at all. For the law explicitly states that this applies to groups who advocate violence to their grievances.
So, you see, this law does not violate the first amendment. It only violates the version you have constructed in your imagination, based on the summary which leaves out that rather important detail.
Venus will become an evening star in the next few months. If your observations are over a few weeks, it would be an excellent evening target as it will go through its phases, much like our own moon does. If the observations are around twilight, you can even have them attempt to see Venus while the sun is still up by looking in the same part of the sky when the sun is up. It gets harder with age(sigh) but I remember easily being able to do it when I was around the age of grade 9.
The Moon focus on the shadow line, or a time when its around 1 week bfore a full moon, as the terminator(shadow) will show excellent surface relief of features.
Jupiter will be probably be only an early morning target during that time, so thats probably out.
Saturn isnt going to be a very good target, other than to show it as a planet, because it is in the part of its orbit where the rings are tilted almost edge on to earth.
Globular Clusters M13 in Hercules would be an excellent target.
Planetary Nebula The 'ring nebula' in the constellation Lyra will be a excellent target for evening viewing, if its late enough, as from most locations in the US it appears almost at the zenith
Double Stars Even through a 4" scope you can see some amazing color contrasts. Albireo in the constellation Cygnus is one of the best, with one red, one blue star. Also, you can go in to some detail about the different types of telescopes, and their functions.
But most importantly, focus on the history of Astronomy itself. There is a rich history over thousands of years of astronomers that have taken us all the way to where we are now, and we wouldnt be here without those giants of the past; Gallileo Gallelie, Nikolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Charles Messier(hes the 'M' in all those objects...M13, M31, etc), Edwin Hubble, Edmund Halley.
I envy you. Have Fun!
Obviously you have never been to 'Death Valley'.
I use to spend march-april out there quite a bit about a decade ago. In fact one of the years was so wet that there was a shallow lake almost the entire length of the valley, that you could walk across and have it come up to your knees at its deepest point. In another year, the southern part(past badwater) was erupting in colorful flower blooms so vast they covered entire mountainsides, and had been unseen for decades to that extent.
Also Zabriskie point, in death valley, has LOTS of sheltered locations out of the sun, and out of any possible floods(you would need about a 30ft wall of water for that to happen). Granted, I dont think anyone would go running up and down the sand dunes at noon, but maybe thats just me.
It really is a nice, beautiful place, that I wish I visited as often as I used to.
At least its still spelled correctly, even if it is a grammatical abomination.
I think you misunderstand how larger government woks projects are run, and why. Physics is only an ancillary benefit.
People take but they also must contribute back or else the system will fail. It is easy for most people because everything on P2P is "free"
Yes, just like it was with broadcast TV and Radio. This is how the vast majority of consumers are accustomed to acquiring their music. Which is why I used that upthread in a previous example.
Theres nothing wrong at all with compensating the end user for this distribution, as a form of this compensation paid out for wider distribution simply came one level up the supply chain previously(kick-backs, payola, etc). And that is why I think that discounts would be a better method than outright cash payments. Even if you jack up the price(as would happen) and make the end user think they were getting a discount.
Consumers then decide if they think the extra benefit is worth the money and either pay for it or do without.
Thats exactly the point. There doesnt need to be a law made that says 'all content must be distributed this way'. If you do not want to provide digital copies of your work and deal with the hassles that come along with it, then dont. And do without the extra revenue that comes with a cost/benefit of some copies being distributed in a way other than your preferred one. And your example of sat radio is perfect, since their subscriber count has been dropping in favor of other alternatives(Pandora, streaming, etc). I personally had a sat radio subscription, and recently stopped it for the much cheaper Pandora route. So should there be a law that says sat radio is the only way to get that type of music?
But doubtless you think that is also an antiquated concept because you are not depriving anyone of anything (your neighbor still has their signal and the provider still has their shows to send out).
I said nothing of the sort. I am pointing out that new laws do not need to be made that favor an old business model, at the expense of a newer one.
I use Radiohead of an example of the concept. Not as an example of what all music should be like. Personally, Im not much of a fan of them.
I see the music industry continuing on, and in fact being better than its current form. But music in of itself is of little value, as you say. However, the people willing to pay for a live performance IS of value. But I fail to see why a cunsumer of music cant directly pay the band. Can you give an example of why that option doesnt work for all genres?
And I know your retort to that will be 'what about the people who cant attend a live event?' And to that I say, that every performer needs to follow in the path of a similar concept as radiohead.
There just isnt an excuse anymore to try and wall off your content and be a control freak about it(not you directly, you in general). The technology is freely available, thanks in part to the Open Source model you reference, and trying to pass laws to continue a business model because those involved seem to think its 'sacred', is not a productive option.
The shitty content stops, yes. And that day cant come soon enough. Just because you create something, doesnt mean you will automatically make money form it.
If its what people WANT to buy, they will. Its already been done, and its only going to continue.
see: Radiohead
And that is 100% acceptable to me. The market will decide. Either the torrent will die, or it will stay.
We dont need laws to regulate it. Thats just a sign of a bad business model. Would it make sense to have laws to regulate that you must buy one horse drawn carriage, even though this new thing called the automobile exists?
And it may be MY bias, but I find most of the 'business owners' who always harp how great the free market is, suddenly find themselves rushing to pass laws to protect them when the market decides against their interests, without thinking twice about those who are already using the new market model to run profitable businesses.
Correct. And if I had to pay for this item, you can be certain that I would not 'freely' distribute it with my own resources without a level of conpensation, be it a discount or whatever form it needs to take. How about for every 100 people I distribute it to using my resources, I get 1% off the next purchase?
I pay, you pay. Those that get it for free, give it for free.
Aside from your holier than thou attitude.. How do you explain over the air broadcast TV and Radio existing and profiting for decades?
Is watching TV without paying for the signal 'stealing'? And if not, why not?
where did I say anything about distributing copyrighted works without a license?
Im not interested in your prejudices, which you just fully disclosed with that assumption. Im interested in the way distribution will be done going into the future. If theres no attempt at compensation given for the use of the individuals resources, then the odds of this idea going anywhere at all, are nill
Im sure everyone here knows your stance by now...but for those that dont, allow me to translate what you just said...
It's a great way of monetizing uncontrollable(by me) distribution channels. Easily allow anyone and their goldfish to distribute large content freely(at no charge to me), and effectively charge(I collect money from the freely given resources of others without compensation) at the codec level. Certainly solves a good half of the people-steal-everything problem.(except for the fact that you are 'stealing' others resources without compensating them)
Im sorry, but your business model is dying, thats why you have so much resistance to the current changes in the world. Allowed to come to an equilibrium, youd be out of work. You are completely free to follow whatever path you want, but when you start advocating for everyone to only do business a certain way because thats the only way you personally can survive, we part ways.
Dont worry, It hasnt occurred to anyone that running a school like a prison in the FIRST place, might be a problem.
The adults who make these rules honestly believe every problem has something to do with anything but themselves.
Im not sure what your posting is trying to get across, as the GP didnt mention anything about his own TV viewing habits, they just presented an easy solution to someone who is whining about their own actions causing them discomfort.
If you are serious about not knowing why it is foolish, feel free to post under your user name instead of anonymous, when you are fully awake. If you have never been exposed to the workings of the legal system in the business world, it is understandable that you may not know the details.
I would be glad to lay out the legal reasons why it is foolish to initiate legal threats against a person without evidence, or the intention of backing them up in a court of law.
You can begin by reading about the legally binding consequences of a Declaratory Judgement as it relates to a poorly written Cease and Desist letter such as this.
Sometimes, perhaps.
Sometimes, though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish. If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent, you can always read the Foolish Cease and Desist letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago.
Obviously, the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats, that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved. I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information, never crossed their mind. In the years that have followed, tens of thousands of people have viewed that letter, and the company who wrote that has had its business practices laid out for everyone to see, and has become a running joke in the community.
But yes, in this case, the FCC probably has a little more professionalism and backbone, to see these sort of questions through.
The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grnland ("Greenland") in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
Do you think Hell, Michigan is named because its supposed to actually represent hell? Or maybe the real estate pimps of thousands of years ago, are exactly like now, when trailer parks are sometimes named 'Luxury Court'...
Its a good thing you arent a business person, or maybe you are since you have an uncanny ability to only see a short term time-horizon of your actions.
when would it be more profitable to pull that oil out of the ground?
a) when the market price of oil is $70/bbl... or
b) when the market price is $300/bbl
That idea suffers from a fatal flaw. It relies on 'someone else' fixing the problem. If you feel strongly about it, simply sign up for a google account, and 'disable' any results to a newscorp site yourself. If enough people do that, the same result will occur.
I plan on doing that right now actually.
You JUST said you wanted it not to sell it one thread up. Now you say you want to sell it? Sorry, I dont make transactions with someone who changes the terms in the middle of the deal.
I choose not to deal with you, our needs are not satisfied by this transaction and I will deal with someone who will.
Isnt the free market great?
http://holophrastic.net/
Im not suggesting that it is owned by the publisher of these remarks, more digging would obviously be required before any boycott or other action was taken against this (possibly) innocent company.
Id gladly make a genetic clone of my dog and give you the copy to do whatever you want to do with it.
Thats YOUR freedom... get it?