Simple Glossary of Telescope and Sky Terms?

Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.
--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net

http://www.google.com/


"W. Watson" wrote:

Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.
--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net

W. Watson wrote:

Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.

Mr. Warner replied "google...." I usually disdain such a reply
(especially after I have spent three hours trying in vain to google an
answer to a question) but Mr. Warner is right* in this instance. The
glossary can be as simple or as complex as you want if you search with
Google.

*IMO, Mr. Warner got the Google URL wrong. It is much easier to find
what you seek at http://www.google.com/advanced_search. Don't forget
to click "Advanced Search Tips" at the top left of the Advanced Search
page. In the left column of the next page that opens, click "Setting
Preferences." Then on the next page that opens (they could have made
this more direct), click "Google Preferences" in the paragraph under
the "Search Preferences" headline. Select your preferences (turn off
filtering, get 100 results per page, e.g.) and save them. Now you're
ready for some power searching.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Apr 17, 4:57*pm, "W. Watson" wrote:
Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.

Simple to mid-range
http://stardate.org/resources/astroglossary/
http://www.nineplanets.org/help.html (with links to other glossaries)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dictionary.html
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/glossary.htm
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/icq/ICQGlossary.html

High-end
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...ry/frames.html

Again, I'm impressed by your knowledge. And I state again, you own stock in
them or work there? I wonder how I found the Harvard glossary. Just a wild
guess I suppose.

jerry warner wrote:
http://www.google.com/


"W. Watson" wrote:

Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.
--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net


--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net

I agree with this nonsense about Google solves all. I posted, humorously, I
hope, that maybe he owns stock or works there. Thanks for the tip. I use
Google, and when it's not showing what I want I, try humans. They're
actually pretty good at it. :-)

Davoud wrote:
W. Watson wrote:

Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.

Mr. Warner replied "google...." I usually disdain such a reply
(especially after I have spent three hours trying in vain to google an
answer to a question) but Mr. Warner is right* in this instance. The
glossary can be as simple or as complex as you want if you search with
Google.

*IMO, Mr. Warner got the Google URL wrong. It is much easier to find
what you seek at http://www.google.com/advanced_search. Don't forget
to click "Advanced Search Tips" at the top left of the Advanced Search
page. In the left column of the next page that opens, click "Setting
Preferences." Then on the next page that opens (they could have made
this more direct), click "Google Preferences" in the paragraph under
the "Search Preferences" headline. Select your preferences (turn off
filtering, get 100 results per page, e.g.) and save them. Now you're
ready for some power searching.

Davoud


--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net

These are all good, but I should have said something about common or simple
glossaries--maybe even illustrated glossaries. Anyway, I'll likely pluck
some of the simpler stuff out of these and others I've gathered. The
Astronomics used to have a very good one with illustrations, but maybe it
was too good. It's now just fairly short textual descriptions. Maybe they
turned the original into a a book.

canopus56 wrote:
On Apr 17, 4:57 pm, "W. Watson" wrote:
Does anyone know of such a glossary on the web. I see Harvard has one, but
it's way beyond what I need.

Simple to mid-range
http://stardate.org/resources/astroglossary/
http://www.nineplanets.org/help.html (with links to other glossaries)
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dictionary.html
http://www.astunit.com/tutorials/glossary.htm
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/icq/ICQGlossary.html

High-end
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...ry/frames.html


--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net

On Apr 18, 11:48*am, "W. Watson" wrote:
I agree with this nonsense about Google solves all. I posted, humorously, I
hope, that maybe he owns stock or works there.

Be careful who you accuse of owning stock, humorously or not. I
remember some guy (Tim) who suggested that Davoud may own stock in
Apple after he posted a lengthy Apple advocacy post, and Davoud
replied: "The last person who impugned my reputation in print lost his
house, a car, his income, and ultimately, his family. I am not by
nature a litigious person, but I would remind you that the civil
courts still
impose stiff penalties for libel."

Wouldn't it be funny if Tim lived in a trailer park with no car,
house, job, or family to lose? ;-))))

Al wrote:

On Apr 18, 11:48 am, "W. Watson" wrote:
I agree with this nonsense about Google solves all. I posted, humorously, I
hope, that maybe he owns stock or works there.

Be careful who you accuse of owning stock, humorously or not. I
remember some guy (Tim) who suggested that Davoud may own stock in
Apple after he posted a lengthy Apple advocacy post, and Davoud
replied: "The last person who impugned my reputation in print lost his
house, a car, his income, and ultimately, his family. I am not by
nature a litigious person, but I would remind you that the civil
courts still impose stiff penalties for libel."

Wouldn't it be funny if Tim lived in a trailer park with no car,
house, job, or family to lose? ;-))))

In what jurisdiction is "accusing" someone of owning stock in a given
company an actionable act of defamation in the first place? It certainly
isn't under California law, which defines "libel" as a "false and
unprivileged"[*] written or printed representation which "exposes
any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which
causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to
injure him in his occupation". (Califonia Civil Code, division 1,
part 2, section 44)

Slander is defined as a "false and unprivileged" statement (made verbally
or communicated by radio or similar means) which "1. Charges a person with
crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime.
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious,
or loathsome disease. 3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his
office, profession, trade, or business, either by imputing to him general
disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation
peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with respect to his office,
profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its
profits; 4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or 5. Which,
by natural consequence, causes actual damage." (Civil Code, section 46)

I don't see how an assertion that one owns stock in a legitimate business
corporation falls under any of these categories (except in some really
specialized circumstance - for example, if one had a job with a regulatory
agency in which one was subject to a "conflict of interest" law that made
it illegal to own stock in certain companies which were directly affected
by the agency's policies) - but aside from that sort of thing, I doubt that
one could claim that one's reputation would be damaged by such a statement
(whether true or false)!
[*] A "privileged" communication includes one made "in the proper
discharge of an official duty" or in a "judicial proceeding": for
example, a prosecuting attorney who accuses the defendant in a trial
of committing a crime is not thereby subject to action for defamation
(even if the trial ends in acquittal); he's supposed to talk like that
in his role in the process of presenting the case which is to be argued.
(Civil Code, section 47)

-dave w

As far as I know, I've only heard of one case where someone resorted to the
law or physical action. That took place a few years ago. I think a guy in
the Kentucky area got angry with someone down in Texas and went to the guy's
house. He shot him, I think. Maybe someone recalls the incident.

David Weinshenker wrote:
Al wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:48 am, "W. Watson" wrote:
I agree with this nonsense about Google solves all. I posted, humorously, I
hope, that maybe he owns stock or works there.
Be careful who you accuse of owning stock, humorously or not. I
remember some guy (Tim) who suggested that Davoud may own stock in
Apple after he posted a lengthy Apple advocacy post, and Davoud
replied: "The last person who impugned my reputation in print lost his
house, a car, his income, and ultimately, his family. I am not by
nature a litigious person, but I would remind you that the civil
courts still impose stiff penalties for libel."

Wouldn't it be funny if Tim lived in a trailer park with no car,
house, job, or family to lose? ;-))))

In what jurisdiction is "accusing" someone of owning stock in a given
company an actionable act of defamation in the first place? It certainly
isn't under California law, which defines "libel" as a "false and
unprivileged"[*] written or printed representation which "exposes
any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which
causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to
injure him in his occupation". (Califonia Civil Code, division 1,
part 2, section 44)

Slander is defined as a "false and unprivileged" statement (made verbally
or communicated by radio or similar means) which "1. Charges a person with
crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime.
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious,
or loathsome disease. 3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his
office, profession, trade, or business, either by imputing to him general
disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation
peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with respect to his office,
profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its
profits; 4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or 5. Which,
by natural consequence, causes actual damage." (Civil Code, section 46)

I don't see how an assertion that one owns stock in a legitimate business
corporation falls under any of these categories (except in some really
specialized circumstance - for example, if one had a job with a regulatory
agency in which one was subject to a "conflict of interest" law that made
it illegal to own stock in certain companies which were directly affected
by the agency's policies) - but aside from that sort of thing, I doubt that
one could claim that one's reputation would be damaged by such a statement
(whether true or false)!

[*] A "privileged" communication includes one made "in the proper
discharge of an official duty" or in a "judicial proceeding": for
example, a prosecuting attorney who accuses the defendant in a trial
of committing a crime is not thereby subject to action for defamation
(even if the trial ends in acquittal); he's supposed to talk like that
in his role in the process of presenting the case which is to be argued.
(Civil Code, section 47)

-dave w

--
Wayne Watson (Nevada City, CA)

Web Page: speckledwithStars.net