A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon Laws



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 11th 07, 04:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Moon Laws

In rec.arts.sf.science Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
You're correct, but you use words with many syllables, which may, in
this case, hamper understanding. Here's my take:

When a statistic says that a chinese makes $500 when you correct for
purchasing-power, what it means is this:

The chinese gets a salary that -in-china- buys aproximately the same
amount of items and services as $500 would in USA.

It does -not- mean that he could exchange his salary for dollars and end
up with 500 of them. Infact where he to do that he'd end up with
aproximately $170.

$170 in china buys about the same amount of -stuff- as $500 in USA,
that's what purchasing parity means.


Thanks, that is a good explanation.

Offcourse this depends -hugely- on what items an services are included
in the standard basket, so it's not really an objective measurement. I'm
certain a haircut costs -less- than 1/3rd in china from USA, while the
price-difference for for example a modern computer is much smaller.


It's not objective, but for comparing relative wealth it is still better
than comparing nominal GDP. Knowing how much you each can buy is much more
useful than knowing what you each can exchange your money for, even if
it's still vague. Like any comparison between countries, it has to be
taken with a grain of salt.

To illustrate, when I'm in China I hardly think about the cost of eating
in a restaurant because it's ridiculously cheap, whereas I try to avoid it
in the US. On the other hand, I have an expensive hobby, and on a really
bad weekend I can easily spend more than my Chinese waiter would make in a
month on it, but it doesn't drive me into bankruptcy (yet!).

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that our enterprising multi-billionaire
is unaware of this. Seems about par for the course.


His modus operandi seems to be to choose the assumptions and statistics
which are most favorable to his cause. The fact that some of them end up
being just plain wrong when used for those purposes is just a trifling
problem.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
  #62  
Old October 11th 07, 04:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 11, 10:41 am, wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:04 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:

skreiv:


On Oct 10, 7:25 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
Could you run by us again how you plan to sell 50 billion channels to 6
billion people by having each person purchase one channel ?
Could you also explain how being able to afford $1/year is enough to
cover the nessecary satelite receiver-transmitter ?
To answer Elvind's question bandwidth demand goes up with time as
services increase and improve.


Since there is a long lead time between the start of the project and
the end of its useful life, it makes sense to over specify the design
to account for this increase. 50 billion channels is about the best I
can reasonably come up with.


You babble a lot.


I explain fully and completely the rational basis of my statements in
answer to questions you raise either directly or inadvertently with
you negative babble. haha.. Any appearance of directionless babble
stems entirely and completely from your incohate and foolish and
baseless negative commentary. I'm responding to you sir. Any
meaninglessness stems entirely from you.

I snipped a page-and-ahalf of irrelevant babble.


You elided relevant commentary that makes it impossible for you to
'win' this argument. Which you wish to do regardless of the facts or
reality. You are the sort of individual who cannot admit when he's
wrong.

Clearly should I build a $40 billion space based infrastructure
described that provides 50 billion live wireless channels that
communicate at 54 mbps using existing chipsets with global coverage
with a recurring cost of $100 million per year - plainly I will be in
a position to make considerable return on the $40 billion
investment.

Since the global telecom market last time I looked made $90 billion in
sales, and spent $50 billion a year maintaining their existing ground
based infrastructure providing something like 3 billion channels with
not so much bandwidth or ease of access - obviously they would be the
first adopters!! They'd gladly pay HALF of what they pay now to
attain wireless broadband across the planet. This would use up less
than 10% of the systems capacity while earning 50% annualist ROI.
This would also change the nature of telecom competition and I would
be in a position to compete head to head in the existing markets, and
given the structure and size of the players in the market, there
would be a period of consolidation, and I doubt at the end of the day
I would have less than 1/8th market share that 's 12.5% - which is
another $10 billion revenue added to the $25 billion just mentioned.
Obviously there is plenty of bandwidth, so at that point, I'd be in a
perfect position to compete on features AND price to expand the total
market. At $1 per channel per year at the lowest end, and universal
coverage, its easy to see the world at the end of that transition will
have universal access to internet and bundled telecom services through
the internet at that price. Obviously even 7 billion people having
access to the internet and IP wireless phones along with IP cable TV
(eg netflix expansion) etc., etc., Which would increase total demand
for telecom services to the range of $120 billion to $200 billion per
year. By comparison everyone eats and nearly everyone uses fuel of
some sort. The food market is $3.2 trillion per year, and the fuel
market is a little over $2.0 trillion per year. So, global telecom
services rising from $90 billion today to $200 billion in a few years
after the system is established, dramatically lowering prices and
increasing telecom participation - is not an unreasonable outcome, and
the figures are based solidly on market realities. Even so, this
level of success, which provides the owners of the infrastructure with
greater than 100% annualized ROI, wouldn't take up more than 15% of
the bandwidth. At this point additional services involving
telepresence, telerobotics, ultra-high-definition video, 22.1 surround
sound, and so forth - would be added to the mix to increase revenue by
increasing level of service and introducing new services. Where could
this go? Well, assuming there is adequate food and fuel, the ability
to work anywhere while living anywhere has a tremendous positive
impact on the global economy. Even isolated villages would benefit
greatly from telerobotic systems that allowed them to work remotely
while staying at home in their village. People in cities could earn
more with an ability to get a job anywhere and not be beholden to
local unions and political parties. Wealthy nations like the US would
have a humanoid tele-robot like Asimo or P3 in every home. And they
would perform a variety of services. Cooking, cleaning, laundry, and
the cooking could be by world class chefs even if you can afford
them. Also instant medical and security services dispatched by tele-
robotics are also possible. This would increase employment rates
world wide as Americans Europeans and Japanese and even Saudi Arabia
and UAE - employ billions of people at low wage - without the bother
and difficulties involved with them living in the host country. This
will spark a massive rise in economic activity, and given that there
is sufficient food and energy, would ultimately end after a period of
30 years of growth in a world where threre are 9 billion people
earning an average of $50,000 - with total economic activity $450
trillion compared to today's world of $65 trillion.. In constant US
dollars. In deflated US dollars likely the income will be $1
quadrillion per year in 2040 dollars.

Yet you fail to answer simple questions adequately.


I've answered every single one of your questions, both explicit and
implied.

I read your answer as:


"I *don't* expect to sell 50 billion, or anywhere close to that,
channels initially, but perhaps later when demand increases"


I have a sound a very sound reason to believe given the direction and
size of economic and bandwidth growth throughout the world, and given
the longevity of the infrastructure - that 50 billion 54 mbps wireless
channels will be fully used well before the infrastructure is
replaced.

China is growing at 11% per year India is growing at 9% per year. The
US is growing at 2% per year. Russia is growing at 6% per year.
Statist fantasies have ended. People recognize the power and beauty
of the market. This is a universal. Even dye to the wool communists
like Lessing have recanted their support of that outworn philosophy.
Less developed regions, have the US Europe and Japan along with the
Asian tigers to model themselves after. They can easily sustain 7%
annual growth rate.

On top of this there is a double digit growth rate in bandwidth
demand. Technologies like ultra-high-definition video, telepresence,
telerobotics, when they come into general use by today's telecom users
will push bandwidth requirements upward. Increasing participation due
to lower unit pricing combined with this increasing level of service,
will maintain growth rates of 15% per year for 20 to 30 years. This
means that this infrastructure will grow 16x or more its initial size
over that time, beyond the demand for 3 billion equivalent channels by
the entire ground based telecom system today.

If you -DONT- expect to be able to sell 50 billion channels early-on, it
is disingenoious to argue as if you -would- be able to sell that many
when doing financial math. The same money earned -later- is worth
-less-. This is pretty basic.


Your analysis is facile not basic.

It costs a lot to put up a satellite. It doesn't cost as much to put
up a tower or lay cable. At the same time, you can cover lots of
ground with a satellite, not so much with a ground based tower or a
cable in the ground.

So, the managment experience of experts gained in efficiently managing
a ground based system suffer common mode failure when applying their
expertise directly to the management of advanced satellite networks.

This is what happened to Iridium. They built a system that by the
time they started to launch it, could compete with the advances made
in ground based systems and so they had nothing to offer unless they
wanted to upgrade, but upgrading a space based infrastructure is too
costly. So, they started out behind, and given their capital
structure would remain behind using the knowledge and instincts gained
in ground based telecom systems.

i've learned from Motorola's failure. Build a system with a mix of
features and capacities that take advantage of the benefits of space
based assets, and deploy sufficient capacity and capability so that
you are light-years ahead of the competition and change the nature of
the telecom business.

Things like this happen you know. New technlogy works when you get the
details right. And sometimes those details are counter-intuitive to
how business was done before. This is one of those cases.

So, how many channels -do- you expect being able to sell, say in the
first 3 years of operation ?


I expect to within 3 years get all existing telecom service providers
to have a presence on my network. From this I will earn $25 billion
per year by that time.

Once that is complete, I expect to have my own in house service, and
capture an addiitional $10 billion per year around that time.

So, this is a total of $35 billion. And there will be a total of
approximately 4.5 billion wireless channels in use - each at 54 mbps -
with global coverage using off-the -shelf chipset following IEEE
standards.

Beyond that I foresee a 15% per year growth rate from $35 billion per
year for the next 17 years to $376 billion per year - at year 20.with
48.5 billion equivalent channels.

Please note: even starting with human population is wildly
overoptimistic. (despite being an order of magnitude under 50 billion)


Your analysis is incomplete and doesn't look at the technical and
market realities upon which my statements are based.

Unless you're thinking subsistence-farmers in china will not only get a
computer, electric power, a satelite-up/downlink and your service, but
they will choose to get one for every member of the household, including
the 2-year-old and the blind 60-year-old who can't read.


When every person is provided an opportunity for revenue and value
that far and away exceeds its cost - every person will have access to
the system. The farmer will sell his produce to the highest bidder,
his sons and daughters will be able to be educated and find top paying
jobs without leaving the village and being apart from family. The 60
year old blind grandmother will first benefit from reading services
for the blind, and later, benefit from telerobotic surgery that will
replace her cornea using the village robot. She will then be able to
sell her authentic chinese cooking services to a number of personal
robotic systems users in beverly hills working part time during the
party season - for more money than her son makes from the farm in a
year. With that money she buys from Harvard, a lifetime learning
viirtual reality suite in Chinese for the 2 year old - which is the
age you need to start in order to inculcate true genius level
learning.

In the beginning the farmer uses a free PDA that he got from the
cooperative - as part of the deal the Chinese government made with me
to build the handsets and ground stations. With that the remote
learning service and reading service for the blind was also delivered
through the PDA when daddy wasn't using it to get the best price for
his rice. Through that, his kids found out that they could get better
employment if they had more telecom capacity. So, they arranged with
a local trade union (this is China remember, it'll be different in
other nations) to have a telerobotic unit leased (for part of their
pay) after taking a test once they have achieved that level of
training. This is a big event for the farm, similar to the kids going
off to find work. But now, everyone's far better off. husbands and
wives can stay together at home while working anywhere in the world.
With the increased income, the kids bought a robot to help daddy
around the farm. HE hired folks from less developed regions than
China. Bangaldesh and elsewhere. The kids and mom experimented with
using the robot for non-farm chores. Dad forbid wasting money having
the robot do things that they could do, or learn to do themselves.
They saved up their money and bought a house call from a physician for
grandma's eyes. it was partly paid for by the visiting doctor
program, and was the result of regular house calls that everyone who
has a robot can recieve free in china. A price was negotiated with
the medical cooperative for the precinct, and grandma was taken to a
local unmanned hospital - for surgery - and then was taken care of my
robotic nursing at home after only spending 8 hours in the hosptial.
Being able to see after 8 years of blindness, the first thing she
wanted to see was her grand daughter whom she never though she would
see. She was inspired to have her grandaughter learn to read which
she never had the opportunity to do. And decided to to learn along
with her. That's when she decided to learn english. She had dated a
visiting bomber pilot who spoke english back during the war, and was
always fascinated with the language. She and her grand-daughter
learned english together and practiced with each other and the online
services. She also got her daughter to pay for her to learn how to
run a tele-robot. Although she had no idea what she would use it
for. Dad thought it was foolish for an old lady to be taught
anything. His wife says it helps the baby learn. Its foolish to
teach a baby anything too. I guess that explains you then - you big
dummy she replied. At that he laughed. Just don't put us all in the
poor house. On the sly after grandma's english was thought to be
superb, mom and the kids arranged for a virtual vacation to Hollywood
California. Grandma having recovered her sight, had become a big fan
of old movies made in Hollywood. She had only seen a few movies with
her American beaux - but the feeling was recaptured when she watched
those movies online, and so, it was a vice that daddy allowed - to see
his mother in law happy to have her sight back. She also helped more
around the farm, so he figured she deserved this pleasure. But mom
and the kids spent nearly $20 to have a 4 hour walk down Hollywood
Bldv and Rodeo Drive - via telepresence A huge waste of money
according to daddy. But she did it anyway, in the middle of the night
- which was afternoon in hollywood. She practiced her english with
people she met on the street. For her this was very thrilling after
being sightless for sol long. As luck would have it she ran into a
woman who just bought a personal services robot for her home in
Malibu. She was fascinated with the woman running the robot. She
asked her what she did. Grandma not wanting to lose face in front of
this rich American didn't want to say what she did today, so she said
she was a cook. People always liked her food, and she was always well
regarded. the woman said really? An authentic chinese cook. I was
going to have a party with a chinese theme this weekend. What would
you recommend? Grandma replied in her best english possible - with a
feast she imagined would be fit for an emperor. She said, if you can
get this or that or the other thing... the two had a good
conversation and much to her chagrin grandma realized that she spent
nearly all her 4 hours talking with the lady. She cut the lady short
and said she had to go. she wanted to see the beach. Well, I'm right
on the beach silly, why don't you come visit and see if the kitchen is
to your liking? How much do you charge? At this grandma didn't
know. She knew $20 was the cost of the link, and she also knew this
person was rich. She said at least $40. The woman blinked. $40 per
person that sounds reasonable, and I'll buy all the food and you'll
make it in my ktichen! this will be wonderful!! Luckily the data
link back to the telepresence robot didn't display features too well -
it gave grandma the ultimate poker face. Uh, uh, she asked first in
chinese how many? What? I'm sorry she said in English. How many
will be at the party? Oh I don't know, its a small party, maybe 30?
I'll pay you for 50 just to be sure and if everyone likes it, we'll
give you a tip as well. Of course grandma said. Well, the lady gave
her the biometric resource locator bmrl - and she paid for the link.
She visited this woman's house on Malibu beach. My god, it was a
palace. She stared at the ocean waves in high definition stereo
vision with surround sound. Beautiful she said in Chinese. She was
blind only monhs before. This was heaven. It was better than
heaven. She saw the kitchen. Where's the wok? she said. And I need
a flame hotter than these little things. Oh I'll get them before the
party. I'll come in the night before and begin cooking. She texted a
menu and then a list of ingredients - later that day - along with a
list of chinese cooking utensils. 50 x 40 = $800 - she couldn't
believe anyone would pay that much to have her cook food. And she ws
going to be cooking up another $500 worth of food easily. That's more
than than her son makes in a season. But anyone who lived in a house
like this could likely afford this on a special occasion she
supposed. She went back to the balcony overlooking the waves from the
kitchen. What is the occasion she asked the hostess. Oh,its just a
weekly get together with friends. I see. Nothing special. She
laughed and said nothing special in Chinese. The hostess looked at
her. Would you like to walk along the beach? Can I? Yes, but bring
the robot back! haha.. She made her way down to the beach and was
apalled to realize that there was mile after mile of palaces each one
every bit as gorgeous as the one she left. This was more unexpected
than rodeo drive which she had heard of. She turned back and found
the house of the robots owner. Do you think anyone else might want
Chinese food made for them? Oh, you're my secret for now dearie. But
after the party, you'll be in hot demand. I am sure.

and she was. and became well known among the celebrities and movie
executives throughout Hollywood. And even though she made over $8,000
per week - making her one of the highest paid people in her village -
and even though she was invited time and time again to visit in person
- she never did so. She didn't want to leave her grand-daughter for
any length of time, and she felt like a vulnerable old lady in person,
but powerful and in charge like in a dream - when appearing by robot.
Besides, she could leave anywhere instantly and be back with her
fmaily without any muss or fuss.

So, this is one way that could play out for the people you mention.

As I said, she bought a lifetime learning software package from
Harvard, after asking around about educating her grand-daughter. She
who accompanied her grandma through the surgery and;grandma insisted
that she be the first thing she see after surgery - because she had
some idea that she might not make it and if she didn't she at least
wanted to see her granddaughter - haha - anyway her grand daughter
became fascinated with medicine and with the process of aging.
Grandma had always said that when she saves up enough money she was
going to accompany her daughter to Cambridge Mass and cook for her
grand daughter in college (and make sure she dated only honorable men
- as long as they're cute grandma) But alas, by the time the 2 year
old turned 22 - grandma was no longer with us- but she was missed by
thousands throughout the world, she published a definitive book on
Chinese cooking, and gave the royalties to her grand-daughter. Her
grand-daughter in turn attended Harvard Medical School and graduated
tops in her class, with and MD and PhD, and later in life won a nobel
prize when she found out how to stabilize teleomeres in a way that did
not cause cancer but at the same time reversed many of the effects of
aging. During her Nobel speech she thanked her grandmother who always
was an inspiration to her.

As a result of this small farm in the dirt poor regions of china
having access to a global wireless telecom service, YOU michael got to
live to a ripe old age of 408. You paid over $50,000 for treatments
over this period. $20,000 of it went to the Genghi Wu Medical
Research Foundation - the little 2 year old you described earlier.
Your payments and 9 bilion others - makes this the largest private
medical research center in known space.

, Eivind Kjørstad


That's $2,000 not $800 for the party.. haha.. I don't know what I was
thinking, I was a little emotional when I wrote that part.


  #64  
Old October 11th 07, 04:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Crown-Horned Snorkack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Moon Laws

On 11 okt, 06:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 9 okt, 03:53, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
:
: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:: BernardZ wrote:
:
: :
: : :
: : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: : :ships do today.
: : :
: :
: : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: : willing to give up their citizenship.
: :
: :
: :Really? Why?
: :
:
: Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
: are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
: If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.
:
: :
: :Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the
: assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other
: :than Liberia.
: :
: :Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are
: :felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their
: :native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask
: :the Liberian government to enforce their laws.
: :
: :Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become
: :Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them,
: :but they can themselves complain to Liberian government...
: :
:
: The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about
: responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'.
: If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that
: leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible?
:
: Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is
: automatically responsible.
:
:Ah, this part.
:
:Read the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention then.
:
:Nowhere is the citizenship of persons mentioned. I see references to
:launching state, and to states whose territory is used for launch as
:well as states performing or procuring the launch, but not to persons.
:

I suggest you need to look harder.

Then point at the relevant parts of the text.

:
:When a Soviet spacecraft (unmanned) crashed in Canada, Soviet Union
aid for damage. Should a US spaceship launched or about to land in
:Florida crash in Cuba, USA would pay Cuba for the damages.
:

Only one state involved in both or your cases.

:
:Columbia carried an Israeli citizen. If a US shuttle with an Israeli
:citizen aboard were to crash in Cuba, would Israel be jointly and
:severally liable for the damages done to Cuba, or would the damages be
aid by USA alone?
:

If the Israeli is the pilot both countries are liable, as the Israeli
is "a person for whom [Israel is responsible".


Your words, or wording of the treaty?

If the Israelis paid
for the launch both countries are liable.


This much agreed. The Liability Treaty does say that when a state
"launches or procures the launch", it is a joint launching state along
with the state whose territory is used.

  #65  
Old October 12th 07, 01:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 11, 11:12 am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Eivind Kjorstad" wrote in message

...

skreiv:
To answer Elvind's question bandwidth demand goes up with time as
services increase and improve.


Since there is a long lead time between the start of the project and
the end of its useful life, it makes sense to over specify the design
to account for this increase. 50 billion channels is about the best I
can reasonably come up with.


You babble a lot. I snipped a page-and-ahalf of irrelevant babble.


Yet you fail to answer simple questions adequately.


Which is why he's in a lot of killfiles, mine included.

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff


Yet nearly 500 read my stuff this past week, nearly 50 responded and 5
sent me private e-mails. Fact is, a fleet of vehicles described here,
along with the nuclear thermal and nuclear electric kick stages, would
make orbital, cislunar, and interplanetary travel throughout the inner
solar system, cheap frequent, reliable and flexible - making
everything we want to do in space easier.


  #66  
Old October 12th 07, 04:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Moon Laws

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 11 okt, 06:20, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
:
: :On 9 okt, 03:53, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
: :
: : :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:: BernardZ wrote:
: :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: : : :ships do today.
: : : :
: : :
: : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: : : willing to give up their citizenship.
: : :
: : :
: : :Really? Why?
: : :
: :
: : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
: : are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
: : If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.
: :
: : :
: : :Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the
: : assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other
: : :than Liberia.
: : :
: : :Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are
: : :felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their
: : :native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask
: : :the Liberian government to enforce their laws.
: : :
: : :Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become
: : :Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them,
: : :but they can themselves complain to Liberian government...
: : :
: :
: : The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about
: : responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'.
: : If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that
: : leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible?
: :
: : Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is
: : automatically responsible.
: :
: :Ah, this part.
: :
: :Read the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention then.
: :
: :Nowhere is the citizenship of persons mentioned. I see references to
: :launching state, and to states whose territory is used for launch as
: :well as states performing or procuring the launch, but not to persons.
: :
:
: I suggest you need to look harder.
:
:
:Then point at the relevant parts of the text.
:

I can't correct your inability to read.

:
:
: :
: :When a Soviet spacecraft (unmanned) crashed in Canada, Soviet Union
: aid for damage. Should a US spaceship launched or about to land in
: :Florida crash in Cuba, USA would pay Cuba for the damages.
: :
:
: Only one state involved in both or your cases.
:
: :
: :Columbia carried an Israeli citizen. If a US shuttle with an Israeli
: :citizen aboard were to crash in Cuba, would Israel be jointly and
: :severally liable for the damages done to Cuba, or would the damages be
: aid by USA alone?
: :
:
: If the Israeli is the pilot both countries are liable, as the Israeli
: is "a person for whom [Israel is responsible".
:
:
:Your words, or wording of the treaty?
:

As an Israeli citizen, he would be someone that the state of Israel
'bears responsibility for'. As operating crew (pilot or commander) he
bears responsibility for mishaps. However, since the Convention takes
responsibility back to nations rather than other entities, Israel is
as responsible as the United States.

:
:
: If the Israelis paid
: for the launch both countries are liable.
:
:
:This much agreed. The Liability Treaty does say that when a state
:"launches or procures the launch", it is a joint launching state along
:with the state whose territory is used.
:

And I note you don't want to go any further.

In other words, it is *NOTHING* like Maritime Law.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #67  
Old October 12th 07, 02:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

I quoted 2007 purchasing power parity of India, China, US and Russia
as an estimate of what might be spent on a global telecom system for a
reason - it is the best estimate of how much purchasing power people
in different nations have when buying the same thing.

All your commentary and talk in an effort to undermine what I've said,
reflects your total and abject lack of knowledge on the subject.

The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory was developed by Gustav
Cassel in 1920. It is the method of using the long-run equilibrium
exchange rate of two currencies to equalize the currencies' purchasing
power. It is based on the law of one price, the idea that, in an
efficient market, identical goods must have only one price.

A purchasing power parity exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power
of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of
goods. These special exchange rates are often used to compare the
standards of living of two or more countries. The adjustments are
meant to give a better picture than comparing gross domestic products
(GDP) using market exchange rates.

Market exchange rates fluctuate but PPP exchange rates reflect the
long run equilibrium value. The distortions caused by using market
rates are accentuated because prices of non-traded goods and services
are usually lower in poorer economies. For example, a U.S. dollar
exchanged and spent in the People's Republic of China will buy much
more than a dollar spent in the United States.

The differences between PPP and market exchange rates can be
significant. For example, the World Bank's World Development
Indicators 2005 estimates that one United States dollar is equivalent
to approximately 1.8 Chinese yuan by purchasing power parity in
2003. . However, based on nominal exchange rates, one U.S. dollar is
currently equal to 7.6 yuan. This discrepancy has large implications;
for instance, GDP per capita in the People's Republic of China is
about US$1,800 while on a PPP basis it is about US$7,204. This is
frequently used to assert that China is the world's second largest
economy, but such a calculation would only be valid under the PPP
theory. At the other extreme, Japan's nominal GDP per capita is around
US$37,600, but its PPP figure is only US$30,615.

Estimation of purchasing power parity is complicated by the fact that
countries do not simply differ in a uniform price level; rather, the
difference in food prices may be greater than the difference in
housing prices, while also less than the difference in entertainment
prices. People in different countries typically consume different
baskets of goods. It is necessary to compare the cost of baskets of
goods and services using a price index. This is a difficult task
because purchasing patterns and even the goods available to purchase
differ across countries. Thus, it is necessary to make adjustments for
differences in the quality of goods and services. Additional
statistical difficulties arise with multilateral comparisons when (as
is usually the case) more than two countries are to be compared.

When PPP comparisons are to be made over some interval of time, proper
account needs to be made of inflationary effects.

Now in this instance we're attempting to determine how many might use
a unversally available telecom infrastructure under conditions of
falling price? The PPP theory gives one answer, which is likely to be
very close to the actual events. It also gives an order of battle and
a pricing structure.

Having 50 billion channels universally available across the planet is
akin to owning a large movie theater. Movie theater owners frequently
have discounted pricing. For students, seniors, early bird (monday
through wednesday pricing discounts) Why? Well its not because they
want to give students a break, or because they want to honor seniors.
No, they do this because they know that there are different demand
curves in different populations and each demand curve produces a peak
profit price.. Same here. There will be a price that people who now
have service will pay which will produce the most profit from that
population, and then there will be lower pricing for other populations
to maximize profits available from them. Since for strategic reasons
we've built a huge theater so to speak, pricing and features will
change over time as the market responds to it so that the owners will
receive the greatest return on investment. The return is likely to be
very high and grow higher over the years.

Put differently, the world today spends $3,200 billion on food. The
world spends $2,000 billion on fuel. Everyone eats. Everyone uses
fuel. Now, today the world spends $90 billion on telecom services.
Not everyone has them. By building a universally accessible wireless
broadband service from space as described, for $40 billion - providing
50 billion channels - a careful analysis indicates that total demand
could grow to between $300 billion and $400 billion per year in 20
years - the lifetime of the equipment. Since the telecom industry
today spends $50 billion per year and obtains only limited geographic
coverage and limited bandwidth for their owners, its clear that even
the service providers active today would add the proposed system to
their existing systems, and eventually ditch their existing systems to
reduce overhead. By charging rates that gather $25 billion per year
from existing providers, and competing head to head on features, not
cost, with these providers, another $10 billion a year can be
obtained. Even so, because of reduced overhead for the providers,
EVERYONE is making more money.

Further, since the cost of delivering telecom services has fallen, the
price point where profit is maximized is also lowered. By lowering
competitor overhead while lowering price and increasing bandwidth
services, the numbrer of users will increase and the bandwidth they
use (in terms of channel count) will increase as well.

So, sales would rise to $35 billion per year in 3 years with only
modest increases in usage to 4.5 billion channels, and then pricing
would fall and as it came down and new services were introduced, total
volume would increase to $360 billion per year with 48.5 billion
channels.

  #68  
Old October 12th 07, 04:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Moon Laws

In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
I quoted 2007 purchasing power parity of India, China, US and Russia
as an estimate of what might be spent on a global telecom system for a
reason - it is the best estimate of how much purchasing power people
in different nations have when buying the same thing.

All your commentary and talk in an effort to undermine what I've said,
reflects your total and abject lack of knowledge on the subject.


I'm going to try this one more time, then you can keep your
misconceptions.

Imagine some guy in China who brings home $3,000/year, which is
$250/month, measured with PPP. Imagine that he decides he can set aside 1%
of his monthly income to pay for your magical satellite internet. Does
that mean you get $2.50/month from this guy?

NO.

You get vastly less, because there's no way for you to get your hands on
PPP-equivalent money. You have to go through the exchange rate. So that
while this guy who's really only making $100/month is considerably better
off than that number indicates, when it comes to paying *you*, we go back
to exchange rates.

To put it more clearly: when deciding how many donuts and DVDs he can buy,
$250 is the right number. When deciding how much money he can give you to
support your operations, $100 is the right number.

Your long and detailed explanation of this only makes it funnier that
you're still getting it completely backwards.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
  #69  
Old October 13th 07, 01:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 12, 11:19 am, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
I quoted 2007 purchasing power parity of India, China, US and Russia
as an estimate of what might be spent on a global telecom system for a
reason - it is the best estimate of how much purchasing power people
in different nations have when buying the same thing.


All your commentary and talk in an effort to undermine what I've said,
reflects your total and abject lack of knowledge on the subject.


I'm going to try this one more time, then you can keep your
misconceptions.

Imagine some guy in China who brings home $3,000/year, which is
$250/month, measured with PPP. Imagine that he decides he can set aside 1%
of his monthly income to pay for your magical satellite internet. Does
that mean you get $2.50/month from this guy?

NO.

You get vastly less, because there's no way for you to get your hands on
PPP-equivalent money.


Depends on the details. If you're building ground stations, handsets
and displays in China for your system you can get many times the PPP
values given the differences in currency values and average work
hours.

You have to go through the exchange rate. So that
while this guy who's really only making $100/month is considerably better
off than that number indicates, when it comes to paying *you*, we go back
to exchange rates.

To put it more clearly: when deciding how many donuts and DVDs he can buy,
$250 is the right number. When deciding how much money he can give you to
support your operations, $100 is the right number.


If you're foolish enough to have your system built in the US sure.
If you're smart enough to have your ground based components to be made
in China you can offer up to a certain volume at PPP or better.

Your long and detailed explanation of this only makes it funnier that
you're still getting it completely backwards.


No, you are not looking at the entire picture.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software



  #70  
Old October 13th 07, 02:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
David Johnston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Moon Laws

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:12:16 -0400, Alan Anderson
wrote:

In article ,
David Johnston wrote:

...For example, laws against wasting air
or failing to use all the handholds when descending a vertical tube
(because you might pick up too much speed and collide with someone
below you.)


You can't legislate away stupidity or recklessness.


In my area the government quite successfully legislated away a lot of
non-seatbelt wearing.


The only sure-fire way to prevent people from "wasting air" is to make
sure air is not a common resource, and that people will not be able to
breathe air they do not own.


That would be entirely unworkable.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Laws of Nature G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 0 January 2nd 07 11:31 PM
80/f5 For the In-Laws [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 November 3rd 05 01:55 AM
IP in china worse than no laws at all [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 1 February 24th 05 04:02 AM
Kepler's laws and trajectories tetrahedron Astronomy Misc 2 March 27th 04 06:31 AM
Kepler's laws Michael McNeil Astronomy Misc 1 January 23rd 04 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.