#81
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: David Johnston wrote: :On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:24:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :David Johnston wrote: : ::On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::No, it does not appear that that is the case at all. :: ::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship ::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially ::responsible? :: ::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is ::quite different. :: ::How is it different? :: : :In just about every way possible. : :I'm asking for specifics here. : Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following: There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G. The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes damages. Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility, depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or something else. Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible. See why I say it's different in just about every way possible? I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an American billionaire who paid for a joyride. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
David Johnston wrote:
:On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :David Johnston wrote: : ::On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:24:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::David Johnston wrote: :: :::On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: ::: :::No, it does not appear that that is the case at all. ::: :::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship :::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially :::responsible? ::: :::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is :::quite different. ::: :::How is it different? ::: :: ::In just about every way possible. :: ::I'm asking for specifics here. :: : :Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following: : :There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in :country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by :nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G. :The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes :damages. : :Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may :presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the :damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility, :depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or :something else. : :Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible. : :See why I say it's different in just about every way possible? : :I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States :responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an :American billionaire who paid for a joyride. Did I say that, or do you just not read English? -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:21:36 GMT, in a place far, far away, David
Johnston made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: ::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship ::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially ::responsible? :: ::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is ::quite different. :: ::How is it different? :: : :In just about every way possible. : :I'm asking for specifics here. : Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following: There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G. The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes damages. Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility, depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or something else. Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible. See why I say it's different in just about every way possible? I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an American billionaire who paid for a joyride. Of course it wouldn't. Though I don't know why you think that this has any bearing on the present discussion. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote: Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because you said it - false as it is. Reading comprehension is essential. I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying. I never said anything remotely like that. Like what exactly? I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the country of manufacture. Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the 0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there. Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were one of those supposed betters. What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha.. Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step. China produces some things more efficiently than the US. The US produces other things more efficiently than China. That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one another. Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller.. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science wrote: Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because you said it - false as it is. Reading comprehension is essential. I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying. I never said anything remotely like that. Like what exactly? I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the country of manufacture. Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the 0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there. Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were one of those supposed betters. What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha.. Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step. China produces some things more efficiently than the US. The US produces other things more efficiently than China. That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one another. Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller.. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting used to the taste? - Brad Guth - |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 13, 11:25 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote: On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science wrote: Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because you said it - false as it is. Reading comprehension is essential. I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying. I never said anything remotely like that. Like what exactly? I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the country of manufacture. Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the 0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there. Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were one of those supposed betters. What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha.. Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step. China produces some things more efficiently than the US. The US produces other things more efficiently than China. That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one another. Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller.. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting used to the taste? - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ah nowhere man, I thought we'd lost you. Didn't expect to see you here. I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. Good job Brad. Keep up the good work! |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 14, 4:40 am, wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:25 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote: On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science wrote: Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because you said it - false as it is. Reading comprehension is essential. I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying. I never said anything remotely like that. Like what exactly? I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the country of manufacture. Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the 0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there. Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were one of those supposed betters. What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha.. Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step. China produces some things more efficiently than the US. The US produces other things more efficiently than China. That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one another. Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller.. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting used to the taste? - Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ah nowhere man, I thought we'd lost you. Didn't expect to see you here. I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. Good job Brad. Keep up the good work! Your suggestion of "the voice of unreason" being a good part of this mostly semitic or pretend-atheist formulated anti-think-tank, of such a perverted faith-based of skewed damage-control mindset from hell, is right on the money. Once we're paying $100/gallon for the remaining fossil or whatever synfuel, paying $1/kwhr and stuck with having insufficient energy of most any other kind for creating more of those same liquid synfuels, at least it'll be a little tough pulling off WWIV over the next round of phony WMD, as we'll have to use sticks and stones in order to beat one another to death over what little accessible energy or energy related products that's left (including food and clean water). Too bad that out of the 350,000 TW of arriving solar energy that's not even including the absolutely terrific amounts of gravity/tidal energy, as such can't be put to any good and clean work. It's as though anything off-world to these usenet rusemasters doesn't count, even though such off-world energy (especially of gravity) is 100% in charge of every accessible inside and out energy of worth on Earth. Even Jupiter's Io is clearly being thermally forced along by those local gravity/tidal forces, yet somehow of the much closer mascon ratio that's of so much greater importance, nearby and orbiting us so fast doesn't add a watt of planetology energy into our global warming environment (go figure). - Brad Guth - |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 10, 2:14 am, American wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:24 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote: skreiv: What nonsense. Just because someone already subscribes doesn't mean they won't subscribe from you. True. But it means they'll only subscribe from you if your offering is significantly better and/or cheaper. The infrastructure they use today is -already- paid for, marginal cost here of keep using it is very low. My neighbourhood (~300 houses) recently installed a fiberoptic network. Cost us aproximately $150K, or ~$500/house if you will, which we got sponsored from a communication-company by promising to buy service from them for atleast a year. (since they where competitive anyway, it is essentially free from our POV) The network is there though. It's ours, and the operating-costs for using it the next 20 years is, essentially, nil. We'd need to buy internet-access from somebody. But that's something for which the price is already falling like brick of lead. Yeah, we -migth- buy it from you if your price is cheaper than the competition. Which mean, currently, less than about $1000/month for 100mpbs symetrical. (but -wont- mean that targetprice or performance 3, 5 or 10 years from now.....) So, you can get $3/house from us monthly. Works out to aproximately $1/person. How, exactly, are you going to get subscribers for your 50 billion cells when you used sold us -one- cell, and we're 500 people ? We're among the best-paying 1% of humans worldwide too. Only 1.5 billion people have routine access to the internet today and only 3.0 billion have telephone service. There are nearly 7 billion people in the world. So, the market is huge. The market is limited to those who can afford electricty, a computer, a satelite-modem, -AND- your subscription fee. Unless your satelites are also magically going to provide electrical power and free computers to everyone. (which they'll then pay back to you trough the $1/year fee!) So, by charging $1 per channel per month, you'd make a helluva return on investment!! And $1 per channel per month would be the high end. The low end might be $1 per channel per year - and you'd get nearly total coverage of the market. In this way you'd capture the $90 billion or so per year in telecommunications services. That market is only $90 billion because rich people pay a lot more than $1/month or $1/year. The top 10% of users spend the majority of that money. If you reduce the prices they pay, you shrink the market. Eivind The market is already shrunk tight enough! Now it's up to the providers to explore a more lucrative form of communication that would expand the market LATERALLY - beyond just *paid for* electricity, modem, and satelite subscription - THOSE are just the "children technologies" of mass media. Now ask yourself this: What would happen if there suddenly became a source of "portable free energy" that wasn't dependent upon being attached to the grid? Add to this "scenario" the opportunity for cheap earth-to-orbit technology and you've suddenly got spectacularly cheap satelite service. What then becomes of the important technology? Wasn't it related to space exploration in the first place? Let me just say there is more than one way to "tighten" the communications market - one is to, as you said, reducing the prices that people pay, and the other is to "loosen" the lateral market enough in order to create newer hierarchies within the technology. It may be possible then that every Bolshevik or practicing neocon has an I-phone in his shirt pocket, but this won't be possible until the market expands beyond L-1. American- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sadly, we can't even safely accomplish our moon's L1, much less any POOF City at Venus L2. We're sequestered well enough below our protective magnetosphere that's failing us by roughly -.05%/year, and the SAA zone is still quite lethal to the crew of ISS, and it's only getting its contour larger and deeper. Our salty old moon that's saturated in gamma and X-rays is also what's causing the vast majority of our global warming. We have not walked on our moon, and the solar system simply is not of what we've been informed as being that singular or rogue like star of a complex formation that it is. We have a close relationship to the Sirius star system, our moon is a fairly new item to Earth, and Venus (currently w/o moon) is simply much less old than Earth, while Mars is oddly without salt and simply older than Earth. (go figure) - Brad Guth - |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
William Mook wrote:
I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they call out the voice of unreason. William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"? Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying to make life difficult for you, do you? I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-) Jim Davis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Laws of Nature | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 0 | January 2nd 07 10:31 PM |
80/f5 For the In-Laws | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 3rd 05 12:55 AM |
IP in china worse than no laws at all | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 24th 05 03:02 AM |
Kepler's laws and trajectories | tetrahedron | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 27th 04 05:31 AM |
Kepler's laws | Michael McNeil | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 23rd 04 04:45 PM |