you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".
AH, you bring up something many don't understand about science and theories. Yes evolution is theory, specifically it's Scientific Theory, which has a totally different connotation to what many people take "theory" as meaning, how it's used colloquially. When we say evolution is a scientific theory part of it's meaning is that it has not been proved scientifically false as of yet. Then if and when it is proven false the theory is modified to account for the discrepancy. If there are too many discrepancies, it's tossed out and research starts over with a new Hypothesis.
Or his views on subjugating weaker animals to violent death for entertainment
At first when Ted Neugent came out with safaris for hunting large animals I was appalled, however logically it makes sense. If poor people, and many if not most people living where this occurs are poor, have a reason to preserve animal life then they will. By offering limited hunting opportunities at a high price, these people can earn money then they will have a good reason to preserve animals and still be able to make a living economically. This is because if they know they can make money then they'll know they can only make money by making sure there are animals to hunt.
This however is much different than the Bush Meat trade, which is decimating gorillas and other animals in places like the Congo.
"there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information" Um, it might just be me, but isn't "name" a personal identifier?
Yes, names can be personal identification however doesn't the taxpayer have the right to know who works for them, and how much they earn?
In fairness to at least two of those airlines though, they declared bankruptcy not because they had to at the time, but because the bankruptcy laws were about to change and it was *much* more beneficial to both companies to declare when they did, rather than take the chance that they *might* have to declare later when the law wouldn't be nearly so favorable.
Ok. I didn't know the change in laws made it harder for businesses to declare bankruptcy, I thought it only dealt with person bankruptcy.
I don't know why you changed to talking about chapter 7, in another posters link above "In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors"
I made a mistake and meant chapter 11 not chapter 7.
From the same resource mentioned above:
"Some critics have claimed that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is excessively lenient in giving a needless "escape hatch" to the incompetent management of a failing company, damaging the efficiency of the economy as a whole and allowing poor managers to continue managing. It is unusual for the management of a company in Chapter 11 to be fired, as it is usually assumed that the present management team knows far more about the company and its customers than would a new set of management. These critics note that in Europe, bankruptcy law is far less lenient for failing companies."
Oh I agree. I even stated the airlines should been be allowed to fail, well should of been "desolved". This country, the US, makes it easy for businesses to declare bankruptcy but makes it hard for people to do the same. Government will even bail out a company, as Reagan did for Chrysler. Seems big business is more important than people, unless they own stocks.
This text also admits that it is currently an acceptable process and is a completely legal option, BUT I think that it is being abused by these types of companies that expect the option equivilent to a "Get out of jail free" card for running their business into the ground to be available after so blatant a stratagy comprised of outright lies and deception.
OK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
And in my reply I specifically included the part of your post I was replying to, namely this:
They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time... AT THE SAME TIME!
Though it may not be true in this case often businesses will file for chapter 7 bankruptcy so they can reorganize and by telling customers along with suppliers they are okay they are saying they are in it for the long term. That's what some airlines did, such as United, Delta, Northwest and US Airway. Regarding the airlines I think they should of been desolved, but with SCO, though I want it to end I also would like to give them the rope they'll be hung with.
The original SCO, the Santa Cruz Operation, made some good software. We had several servers running it many years ago, along with a few with re-branded "Dell Unix." It's a shame that the original company will be forgotten because of this current abomination.
Bankruptcy prevents an entity's creditors from forcing liquidation of the entity's assets. If Novell won it's case against SCO, Novell could enforce it's judgment against SCO and force SCO to dissolve. If SCO was dissolved the case against IBM would disappear. Now that SCO has filed for bankruptcy it is protected from its creditors. Therefore Novell cannot get the licensing fees SCO owes it, and SCO can continue to exist.
However from what I understand Novell isn't a creditor, instead Novell is a property owner. Even in bankruptcy a property owner gets his property back.
What does SS1, an irrelevant joyride, have to do with the SpaceX Falcons, a relevant series of orbital spacecraft?
Not knowing, or recalling what SS1 is I reread the post I replied to and didn't see where SS1 comes in. But as for those joyrides, as I've previously stated space tourism will spur the development of more practical and powerful spacecraft. If those like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace are successful what they do can be used as a method to develop lower cost space transportation. Heck if, a LEO, Low Earth Orbit, place like a hotel, can be built so might a LEO factory, or fabrication plant, or launching platform. Build and launch a vehicle there to go to the moon. Then the moon could be mined and because of it's lower gravity raw material can then be sent back to the factory to build more vehicles as well as a bigger facility, maybe even something more durable.
Of course all this leaves out the fact that a person in space will receive much more radiation in one day than they will, I think one article in "Science" or another science magazine said, in one year on earth. The article said also that if a crew of 10 were to take off for Mars with the technology we have today, the odds are at least one will die from cancer caused by radiation on the way and 9 of those 10 will have cancer when they get there. Currently we have no way of blocking solar or cosmic radiation. Even a Dyson Sphere would have to have a massive energy source to repel particles.
This is similar to Branson's prize he's offering for removing CO2 from the atmosphere at some rather significant rate;
Actually I think it could be relatively easy, by seeding the oceans with iron powder. Doing so causes phytoplankton to bloom pulling CO2 from the atmosphere: Iron Enriching Southern Ocean Pulls Carbon Dioxide From Atmosphere. One problem though is keeping the CO2 from going back into the atmosphere.
I just can't imagine that much work being accomplished, even with heavy use of volunteer labor, for that price.
I don't think the idea is that the prize money will pay but that it gives explorers an incentive, that same as with the XPrize. Once the goal is met then commercial applications will be developed. I bet Richard Branson would love Virgin Galactic to be able to offer vacations on the moon, which makes them a good target for financial backing.
If you're interested in astrophotography the thing to do is find a star party and learn from someone who knows how to do it. If you just buy a $500 telescope and hook up your camera you'll be disappointed. Most people quit and miss out.
Thanks for the info. Yea, I'm seen people give up on a lot of things. Someone get a "fancy" camera and just expect it to work without knowing anything about photography or bothering to reading the manual. Heck, people can't be bothered to read their DVD's manual. Frequently they can't be bothered to experiment in an orderly fashion either. What I used to do myself is experiment, like with the Sunny 16 rule and if I couldn't figure it out I'd RTFM. If I was still hung up I'd then ask for help. Unfortunately I almost have to have someone behind me watching now, too often I get too exasperated now as my memory is bad now.
The idea isn't to do this for the sake of the prize, even the X prize cost more to get the first time than it actually rewarded. The idea is to use the contest to fuel research and a huge publicity factory for the companies involved in the competition. I for one, think it's a good idea. Much better than raising my taxes to fund it centrally.
Its CHICKEN FEED for this type of mission. You can't even buy a launch for $30 million, never mind develop and manufacture a lander. It'll be the most expensive $30 million you ever got.
I don't think anyone realistically expects the prize to pay for it, but it gives people some motivation. Anyone who does it is liable to come out with some money making patents or opportunities. Someone like Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic can offer vacations on the moon to the wealthy. They've already got more than 150 people to buy $200,000 tickets for a flight on SpaceShipOne, and have collected $15,000,000 in deposits. Look at what Russia has been doing, selling tickets on trips to the Space Station for millions. I bet if someone's willing to pay $30,000,000 to go to the space station, people will be willing to pay twice that, heck even $100,000,000 to go to the moon.
As I recall, the Space Treaty doesn't apply to individuals or private companies, only governments.
Actually the wiki article says it does:
"Responsibility for activities in space"
"Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals with international responsibility, stating that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities."
You're not going to get a better buy than the Falcons, so better hope that they work and SpaceX doesn't go belly-up;)
Although it's possible SpaceX will go belly up, I seriously doubt it will, the only way I can this happening is if they can't deliver. If it were then Richard Branson wouldn't be investing or putting in orders for any SpaceShipOnes so he could offer flights to space tourists. His Virgin Galactic has sold tickets to its first 150 passengers for $200,000 each. They have collected more than $15 million in deposits.
The budget rules out the vast majority of them, and the few idealists who love space issues enough to put forth that kind of cash -- like, say, Musk -- are already going to be putting their money toward space in their preferred method (with their own companies) instead of competing for some prize.
And who's to say one of those companies won't be the one that does it? I bet Richard Branson will be willing to invest in a company that shows they are capable of landing a craft on the moon. He's already offering space flights for those who can afford it, I bet he'd love to be able to offer a vacation on the moon. I used to frown on space being commercialized, however I've come to believe it's the fastest way to explore space. Space tourism will encourage more people to explore space.
I'd rather Microsoft have my personal info than the government. Any government.
How do you know Microsoft won't give the government your info? Wasn't MS one of those cited for giving the Chinese government data on people? Wasn't MS cited for sharing data with the US government, along with Yahoo while Google refused?
What you've found on Google Checkout aren't tracking mounts, they're mostly piggyback mounts to attach a camera to the side of a telescope.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "tracking mount". But you're right about what I've found, I specifically searched camera telescope mount. Like I said before, I want to be able to mount a camera to a telescope. No matter whether you use a digital or a film camera, you can get photos that are a lot better. If that weren't so then people wouldn't be needing a telescope period, they can just go out and look up. Sure you can get photos for instance of the moon but with the camera mounted on a telescope you can get more details, see the craters or what have you. Or maybe you want to get shots of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, do you think a digital camera can capture it without a telescope? If it can don't you believe mounting the camera on a telescope will make a better photo? Or a nebulus? I think you're limiting yourself by not using a telescope to mount a camera on for astrophotography.
Using Find in Firefox, I only find two instances of "track" on that page and both are about tracking an order. So I'm still not sure what you mean by "tracking mount".
Anyway, I expect the original poster has already made up his mind how he's going to proceed and you evidently have a serious investment in film photography. Good luck if you decide to try some astrophotography. It can certainly be done with film.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if he were as confused as I am. And yes, for me I do have a substantial investment (Substantial for me anyway) in film photography, and want to increase my investment in it. I want to get more lenses, both telescopic and macro, wide angle, or fisheye. I also want to get a medium format camera with a film back, then later a digital back for it. And I want to set up a darkroom in my basement. I love photography and hope to make money at it. I am on disability and can't do much of anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion largely concerns itself with claims about states of consciousness, which to attain and how to attain them.
The only religions I know this can be applied to is Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism.
Falconyou have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".
AH, you bring up something many don't understand about science and theories. Yes evolution is theory, specifically it's Scientific Theory, which has a totally different connotation to what many people take "theory" as meaning, how it's used colloquially. When we say evolution is a scientific theory part of it's meaning is that it has not been proved scientifically false as of yet. Then if and when it is proven false the theory is modified to account for the discrepancy. If there are too many discrepancies, it's tossed out and research starts over with a new Hypothesis.
FalconOr his views on subjugating weaker animals to violent death for entertainment
At first when Ted Neugent came out with safaris for hunting large animals I was appalled, however logically it makes sense. If poor people, and many if not most people living where this occurs are poor, have a reason to preserve animal life then they will. By offering limited hunting opportunities at a high price, these people can earn money then they will have a good reason to preserve animals and still be able to make a living economically. This is because if they know they can make money then they'll know they can only make money by making sure there are animals to hunt.
This however is much different than the Bush Meat trade, which is decimating gorillas and other animals in places like the Congo.
FalconThat's also what faith is, belief without any evidence, or belief despite contrary evidence. However...
You don't choose your faith, it chooses you.
Falcon"there were no Social Security numbers, no dates of birth, no personal identifiers. The documents only contained name and pay information" Um, it might just be me, but isn't "name" a personal identifier?
Yes, names can be personal identification however doesn't the taxpayer have the right to know who works for them, and how much they earn?
FalconIn fairness to at least two of those airlines though, they declared bankruptcy not because they had to at the time, but because the bankruptcy laws were about to change and it was *much* more beneficial to both companies to declare when they did, rather than take the chance that they *might* have to declare later when the law wouldn't be nearly so favorable.
Ok. I didn't know the change in laws made it harder for businesses to declare bankruptcy, I thought it only dealt with person bankruptcy.
FalconI don't know why you changed to talking about chapter 7, in another posters link above "In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors"
I made a mistake and meant chapter 11 not chapter 7.
From the same resource mentioned above:
"Some critics have claimed that Chapter 11 bankruptcy is excessively lenient in giving a needless "escape hatch" to the incompetent management of a failing company, damaging the efficiency of the economy as a whole and allowing poor managers to continue managing. It is unusual for the management of a company in Chapter 11 to be fired, as it is usually assumed that the present management team knows far more about the company and its customers than would a new set of management. These critics note that in Europe, bankruptcy law is far less lenient for failing companies."
Oh I agree. I even stated the airlines should been be allowed to fail, well should of been "desolved". This country, the US, makes it easy for businesses to declare bankruptcy but makes it hard for people to do the same. Government will even bail out a company, as Reagan did for Chrysler. Seems big business is more important than people, unless they own stocks.
This text also admits that it is currently an acceptable process and is a completely legal option, BUT I think that it is being abused by these types of companies that expect the option equivilent to a "Get out of jail free" card for running their business into the ground to be available after so blatant a stratagy comprised of outright lies and deception.
See above.
FalconOK, I'll reply to these posts since it looks like there is a common misunderstanding going on about what I am trying to get across.
And in my reply I specifically included the part of your post I was replying to, namely this:
They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time... AT THE SAME TIME!
Though it may not be true in this case often businesses will file for chapter 7 bankruptcy so they can reorganize and by telling customers along with suppliers they are okay they are saying they are in it for the long term. That's what some airlines did, such as United, Delta, Northwest and US Airway. Regarding the airlines I think they should of been desolved, but with SCO, though I want it to end I also would like to give them the rope they'll be hung with.
FalconThe original SCO, the Santa Cruz Operation, made some good software. We had several servers running it many years ago, along with a few with re-branded "Dell Unix." It's a shame that the original company will be forgotten because of this current abomination.
Agreed!
FalconBankruptcy prevents an entity's creditors from forcing liquidation of the entity's assets. If Novell won it's case against SCO, Novell could enforce it's judgment against SCO and force SCO to dissolve. If SCO was dissolved the case against IBM would disappear. Now that SCO has filed for bankruptcy it is protected from its creditors. Therefore Novell cannot get the licensing fees SCO owes it, and SCO can continue to exist.
However from what I understand Novell isn't a creditor, instead Novell is a property owner. Even in bankruptcy a property owner gets his property back.
FalconThey are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time... AT THE SAME TIME!
That's what Chapter 11 bankruptcy is all about. It allows you to reorganize your business and liabilities so you can stay in business.
FalconWhat does SS1, an irrelevant joyride, have to do with the SpaceX Falcons, a relevant series of orbital spacecraft?
Not knowing, or recalling what SS1 is I reread the post I replied to and didn't see where SS1 comes in. But as for those joyrides, as I've previously stated space tourism will spur the development of more practical and powerful spacecraft. If those like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace are successful what they do can be used as a method to develop lower cost space transportation. Heck if, a LEO, Low Earth Orbit, place like a hotel, can be built so might a LEO factory, or fabrication plant, or launching platform. Build and launch a vehicle there to go to the moon. Then the moon could be mined and because of it's lower gravity raw material can then be sent back to the factory to build more vehicles as well as a bigger facility, maybe even something more durable.
Of course all this leaves out the fact that a person in space will receive much more radiation in one day than they will, I think one article in "Science" or another science magazine said, in one year on earth. The article said also that if a crew of 10 were to take off for Mars with the technology we have today, the odds are at least one will die from cancer caused by radiation on the way and 9 of those 10 will have cancer when they get there. Currently we have no way of blocking solar or cosmic radiation. Even a Dyson Sphere would have to have a massive energy source to repel particles.
FalconEven if the prize was adequate, what commercial application would it have?
I bet Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic would love to offer a vacation on the moon. Bigelow Aerospace trying to open up a hotel in LEO.
FalconThis is similar to Branson's prize he's offering for removing CO2 from the atmosphere at some rather significant rate;
Actually I think it could be relatively easy, by seeding the oceans with iron powder. Doing so causes phytoplankton to bloom pulling CO2 from the atmosphere: Iron Enriching Southern Ocean Pulls Carbon Dioxide From Atmosphere. One problem though is keeping the CO2 from going back into the atmosphere.
I just can't imagine that much work being accomplished, even with heavy use of volunteer labor, for that price.
I don't think the idea is that the prize money will pay but that it gives explorers an incentive, that same as with the XPrize. Once the goal is met then commercial applications will be developed. I bet Richard Branson would love Virgin Galactic to be able to offer vacations on the moon, which makes them a good target for financial backing.
FalconIf you're interested in astrophotography the thing to do is find a star party and learn from someone who knows how to do it. If you just buy a $500 telescope and hook up your camera you'll be disappointed. Most people quit and miss out.
Thanks for the info. Yea, I'm seen people give up on a lot of things. Someone get a "fancy" camera and just expect it to work without knowing anything about photography or bothering to reading the manual. Heck, people can't be bothered to read their DVD's manual. Frequently they can't be bothered to experiment in an orderly fashion either. What I used to do myself is experiment, like with the Sunny 16 rule and if I couldn't figure it out I'd RTFM. If I was still hung up I'd then ask for help. Unfortunately I almost have to have someone behind me watching now, too often I get too exasperated now as my memory is bad now.
The idea isn't to do this for the sake of the prize, even the X prize cost more to get the first time than it actually rewarded. The idea is to use the contest to fuel research and a huge publicity factory for the companies involved in the competition. I for one, think it's a good idea. Much better than raising my taxes to fund it centrally.
Aboslutely!
FalconIts CHICKEN FEED for this type of mission. You can't even buy a launch for $30 million, never mind develop and manufacture a lander. It'll be the most expensive $30 million you ever got.
I don't think anyone realistically expects the prize to pay for it, but it gives people some motivation. Anyone who does it is liable to come out with some money making patents or opportunities. Someone like Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic can offer vacations on the moon to the wealthy. They've already got more than 150 people to buy $200,000 tickets for a flight on SpaceShipOne, and have collected $15,000,000 in deposits. Look at what Russia has been doing, selling tickets on trips to the Space Station for millions. I bet if someone's willing to pay $30,000,000 to go to the space station, people will be willing to pay twice that, heck even $100,000,000 to go to the moon.
FalconAs I recall, the Space Treaty doesn't apply to individuals or private companies, only governments.
Actually the wiki article says it does:
"Responsibility for activities in space"
Falcon"Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals with international responsibility, stating that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities."
You're not going to get a better buy than the Falcons, so better hope that they work and SpaceX doesn't go belly-up ;)
Although it's possible SpaceX will go belly up, I seriously doubt it will, the only way I can this happening is if they can't deliver. If it were then Richard Branson wouldn't be investing or putting in orders for any SpaceShipOnes so he could offer flights to space tourists. His Virgin Galactic has sold tickets to its first 150 passengers for $200,000 each. They have collected more than $15 million in deposits.
FalconThe budget rules out the vast majority of them, and the few idealists who love space issues enough to put forth that kind of cash -- like, say, Musk -- are already going to be putting their money toward space in their preferred method (with their own companies) instead of competing for some prize.
And who's to say one of those companies won't be the one that does it? I bet Richard Branson will be willing to invest in a company that shows they are capable of landing a craft on the moon. He's already offering space flights for those who can afford it, I bet he'd love to be able to offer a vacation on the moon. I used to frown on space being commercialized, however I've come to believe it's the fastest way to explore space. Space tourism will encourage more people to explore space.
FalconYou would have to bring a man back home, ...
Says who? I nominate George Bush, with a second flight (to prove it wasn't just a fluke success) carrying Dick Cheney.
I second that, all in favor signify by saying Ay.
FalconYea, the moon landing was all staged. There was no real moon landing.
FalconPerhaps Google can partner with Richard Branson, but then again perhaps Branson will win it.
FalconI'd rather Microsoft have my personal info than the government. Any government.
How do you know Microsoft won't give the government your info? Wasn't MS one of those cited for giving the Chinese government data on people? Wasn't MS cited for sharing data with the US government, along with Yahoo while Google refused?
FalconWhat you've found on Google Checkout aren't tracking mounts, they're mostly piggyback mounts to attach a camera to the side of a telescope.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "tracking mount". But you're right about what I've found, I specifically searched camera telescope mount. Like I said before, I want to be able to mount a camera to a telescope. No matter whether you use a digital or a film camera, you can get photos that are a lot better. If that weren't so then people wouldn't be needing a telescope period, they can just go out and look up. Sure you can get photos for instance of the moon but with the camera mounted on a telescope you can get more details, see the craters or what have you. Or maybe you want to get shots of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, do you think a digital camera can capture it without a telescope? If it can don't you believe mounting the camera on a telescope will make a better photo? Or a nebulus? I think you're limiting yourself by not using a telescope to mount a camera on for astrophotography.
Here are some tracking mounts: http://www.telescopes.com/mounts-and-mount-accessories/8197+8200+9463.cfm?Nao=36
Using Find in Firefox, I only find two instances of "track" on that page and both are about tracking an order. So I'm still not sure what you mean by "tracking mount".
Anyway, I expect the original poster has already made up his mind how he's going to proceed and you evidently have a serious investment in film photography. Good luck if you decide to try some astrophotography. It can certainly be done with film.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if he were as confused as I am. And yes, for me I do have a substantial investment (Substantial for me anyway) in film photography, and want to increase my investment in it. I want to get more lenses, both telescopic and macro, wide angle, or fisheye. I also want to get a medium format camera with a film back, then later a digital back for it. And I want to set up a darkroom in my basement. I love photography and hope to make money at it. I am on disability and can't do much of anything else.
Falcon