ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
| Jay Windley said:
| Blah, blah, blah. In my 15+ years on Usenet I've heard countless
| self-appointed moderators whine about this mythical "bandwidth", and
I've
| never seen Usenet run out of it.
|
| Look harder. Several ISPs have dropped Usenet because of the expense of
| supporting it.

That argument too has been around for 15 years, back when 2 gigabyte disks
cost as much as a car and the issues were even more acute. The expense is
chiefly centered around the binary newsgroups where vast amounts of
multimedia data are exchanged. That's what most commerical ISP customers
want, and that's what most ISPs find most difficult to support. The entire
sci.* hierarchy is a drop in the bucket compared to that. So if you want to
complain about bandwidth usage, go yell at the folks over in
alt.sex.sounds.gilbert-gottfried.

Or go yell at "regulars" who use various newsgroups as their own personal
chat rooms.

| Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
| The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.

NNTP has provided XOVER protocols for more than five years, and every
newsreader I've used recently supports it. The killfill works on the XOVER
data (selected headers) and so if you killfile someone you only have to
download 120 bytes or so of the article headers to know you don't want any
more of that article. XOVER was invented precisely to enable efficient
killfiling for low-bandwidth users.

I'm really not trying to be "holier than thou" or to fill up a newsgroup
with what others might consider useless crap. Maybe it's my advancing age,
but I just don't have as much patience as I used to for self-appointed
moderators with control issues. If you don't like what I have to say, put
me in your killfile. Honestly, it doesn't offend me.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Herb Schaltegger said:
In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

Consider the personal bandwidth of those of us who have dial-up access.
The newsreader downloads all posts, and only then can filter them.
You could get better newsreading software that downloads headers only,
filters as directed, then downloads only articles you actually want to
read. Just a suggestion . . .

I've actually done a fair deal of research on newsreaders before
settling on the one I now use. One of my requirements is based on the
way I read usenet, from my laptop, disconnected from the net. There is
a very limited amount of filtering that can be done just from the
headers. (Killfiles based on sender or number of cross-postings can
work from the headers, but content-based filtering doesn't work without
content.)
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

Herb Schaltegger said:
In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
I've actually done a fair deal of research on newsreaders before
settling on the one I now use.
Ahh, well . . . as I noted, it WAS just a suggestion.

And I appreciate it. Suggestions like that are one way I learn new
things.


Actually, from
your headers I noted that you were using Gravity; I actually tried that
when I was predominately using Windows for usenet access. I liked it
pretty well but I had purchased a full license for Agent so I stuck with
it.

There is a lot of subjectivity in choosing a news reader. I tried Agent
and found its UI to be cartoonish. (I've done some UI work
professionally and that makes me *very* picky. While there is much to
dislike about Outlook Express, its interface is clean and clear.
Gravity's UI is nearly as good, without the risks of OE.) In some ways,
I miss Agent's filtering capabilities. Free Agent was too limited for
me, but the payware agent did every kind of filtering I care about. It
is also one of the few newsreaders that work well on an occasionally
networked laptop computer.


All my killfiles are based on headers, either thread titles, posters'
names or some Path statements. They work wonders all by themselves but
I can understand why you might want content filters as well.

My most important content filter: any post that has my name in it is
highlighted in red. Not just personal ego, but also if someone asks me
a question, I should read the post.

I also have a fair number of content filters that color threads ugly
brown. Any thread that includes "Brad Guth", "John Maxson", et. al.
Gravity can't just kill such a thread (iirc, pay-Agent can), but ugly
brown is close enough for me.

At the moment, I'm seriously considering Beady's recommendation of
'nfilter'. It looks like a nice addition to Gravity's content
filtering.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
|
| Consider them complementary rather than conflicting.

Makes sense from your point of view.

We're answering slightly different questions. The solution is complemenary
but the problem of protocol design under those constraints would be
conflicting. If someone says, "Design a protocol that allows content-based
filtration, but doesn't require you to download all the content," then NNTP
is not that protocol. One solution is to upload the filtration criteria and
make the server do the filtering. (ISPs would love that one.)

| The content based filtering can deal with
| the posts that survive the header-based filtering.

Of course. That's the other solution. If you're using both methods then
you're making the appropriate compromise between picky filtration and low
bandwidth. Using the headers as a hint to the contents is what NNTP
designers expected to happen.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
landing.

The moon landings are not any hoax, they just weren't manned, because
if they were there'd be a whole lot more radiation fogging of film
(especially of Kodak film) and of measurably but survivable TBI dosage
applied to those otherwise radiation proof astronauts and, there'd
also have been a lunar SAR/VLA aperture receiving station (robotic) up
and running as of decades ago;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

All you have to do Jim Davis, is provide your own superior numbers
and/or a web page that I can post a link into (NASA moderated pictures
of a clumping lunar surface that's reflecting at nearly 50% isn't
going to cut it, neither are those terrific still photos of any frail
test flight that's not likely as stable nor as reliable as the V-22
Osprey, which can't fly either yet we've got quality stills of it
hovering before any crash and even a few movie minutes before it
crached while killing everyone onboard, even the latest strike force
vertical jet aircraft is unstable at best, that's after throwing every
possible level of modern fly-by-wire technology that operating from a
bloody cash of nearly CRAY computers that can't miss a single bit out
of millions of bits worth of instruction code that we've got invested
in the damn thing, which BTW we didn't have back then) so, offer
whatever it is that others and myself can compare of whatever it is
that you have to stipulate as opposed to my uneducated arguments. In
the mean time, I'll continue to read of what others have to say and,
I'll even do my best to understand it, even though you seem to have
far more ulterior motives at risk than you or I can shake a flaming
stick at.

In spite of others such as yourself contributing squat worth of
specifics, certainly nothing but infomercials on behalf of Club NASA,
I believe I'm getting somewhat closer to understanding the harsh
environment of Earth L4 or L5, thereby I'm slowly gaining ground upon
what Venus L2 may have to offer, so that the following updated page is
becoming both "good news" and "bad news".

Here's my latest update and, as far as this village idiot can figure,
it's become somewhat worse off than I thought, at least the Van Allen
zone as representing any significant radiation buffer for Earth simply
isn't what the pro-Apollo cults have to say, even though it's a fairly
nasty place to spend any amount of time in a craft as ****-poorly
shielded as what the Apollo missions had to work with and, don't even
mention anything of TRW Space Data, as that's 27 times worse off.

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm

There's been another metric tonne worth of new information that I've
learned about the radiation environment at Earth L4/L5, not to mention
the greater risk imposed from secondary (X-Ray) dosage that's
attributed to solar minimum cosmic radiation interacting with the
likes of any shield and/or the lunar surface.

This is where the opposition (perhaps that's you) offers somewhat
intentional disinformation, as being tossed out like so much warm and
fuzzy flak at my position, where actually that's what's been giving me
insight and further motivation into learning what's more likely the
case than not, like what our atmosphere and of the void or space in
between Earth's atmosphere and 590 km has to offer, a factor of
roughly 274,000:1 in reducing radiation exposure as opposed to the Van
Allen zone attributing another mere 200:1 influx buffer.

For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
our survival, responsible for creating the bulk of Earth's shield,
achieving our current level of exposure and, if in fact the Van Allen
imposes a mere 200:1 benefit, that's certainly worth the effort, as
I'll take 1 mrem/day as opposed to 200 mrem/day any day of the week,
month or year, not to mention a lifetime that wouldn't be all that
long if we couldn't adapt/evolve into managing with such dosage.
Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
itself.

Regards, Brad Guth "GUTH Venus"

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
| "they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
| of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
| down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
| landing.

More ad hoc revisionism. At first there isn't any record. Then when the
records are clearly shown, you say there's no film. Then when several
minutes' worth of film are shoved under your nose, you say there's no film
of it doing some certain thing. Pretty soon you'll be claiming, "There's no
film record of a gold-foiled test lander piloted by Neil Armstrong kicking
up a little dust and landing on a brightly lit terrain under a black sky."

Give it up, Brad. Your opponents have shown that they're much more adept
and motivated than you are at doing primary research. You haven't even
called the number I gave you, have you? You haven't looked at the
Spacecraftfilms.com film, have you? You sit there idly demanding more and
more evidence, when it's obvious that you're less and less interested in
seeing it.

| All you have to do [insert name], is provide your own superior
| numbers and/or a web page

Yawn. Broken record.

| For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
| allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
| camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
| our survival

They are.

| if in fact the Van Allen imposes a mere 200:1 benefit

Why do you insist on trying to boil down the numbers before you understand
the basic qualitative concepts?

| Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
| zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
| then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
| itself.

No. You simply don't understand what you read. You're still trying to
compare two very dissimilar things. And instead of looking to you faulty
comparison for the answer, you simply assume your ignorance isn't a problem
and that someone "must" be lying.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Jay Windley" wrote in message ...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
| "they made hundreds of flights" and oddly not one film record of any
| of them performing their essential speedy drop-in from the sky,
| down-range, accomplish various down-range maneuverings and safe
| landing.

More ad hoc revisionism. At first there isn't any record. Then when the
records are clearly shown, you say there's no film. Then when several
minutes' worth of film are shoved under your nose, you say there's no film
of it doing some certain thing. Pretty soon you'll be claiming, "There's no
film record of a gold-foiled test lander piloted by Neil Armstrong kicking
up a little dust and landing on a brightly lit terrain under a black sky."

Give it up, Brad. Your opponents have shown that they're much more adept
and motivated than you are at doing primary research. You haven't even
called the number I gave you, have you? You haven't looked at the
Spacecraftfilms.com film, have you? You sit there idly demanding more and
more evidence, when it's obvious that you're less and less interested in
seeing it.

| All you have to do [insert name], is provide your own superior
| numbers and/or a web page

Yawn. Broken record.

| For some odd reason(s), I was previously under the impression or
| allusion, as kindly provided by all the pro-NASA as well as pro-Apollo
| camps, that our Van Allen belts or zones were of the major benefit to
| our survival

They are.

| if in fact the Van Allen imposes a mere 200:1 benefit

Why do you insist on trying to boil down the numbers before you understand
the basic qualitative concepts?

| Although, that also represents of what's existing beyond the Van Allen
| zone of death is in fact considerably more irradiated hot and nasty
| then we've been told, especially the likes of L4/L5 and of the moon
| itself.

No. You simply don't understand what you read. You're still trying to
compare two very dissimilar things. And instead of looking to you faulty
comparison for the answer, you simply assume your ignorance isn't a problem
and that someone "must" be lying.

How very true, I don't seem to understand how the late 60s space
travel inside an aluminum craft that had a significant portion of it's
shield density at 5 g/cm2, yet only received 10 mrem/day while between
our Van Allen zone and of going to/from the moon, then somehow
entirely skipping the bulk of the Van Allen zone of death at that and
of otherwise being near raw exposed while spending some 36 hours on
the lunar surface during a somewhat solar maximum phase. All of that's
got to be a fairly neat trick, as the science and laws of physics
simply aren't there, just the likes of yourself.

BTW; just for your entertainment, I've got lots more poor grammar and
**** poor syntax, plus loads of just plain old mistakes if you'll
checkout my latest edit: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/deposit.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| How very true, I don't seem to understand how the late 60s space
| travel

Sidestepping. This thread is about your unwillingness to research the
LLTV/LLRV vehicles, despite having made assertions about them. You keep
asking for more and more evidence without revising your arguments to account
for the evidence that is periodically provided.

Either defend your LLTV/LLRV statements or withdraw them. Do not merely
sidestep the counterarguments.

| All of that's got to be a fairly neat trick, as the science and
| laws of physics simply aren't there, just the likes of yourself.

I've read your statements on that issue, and I see in them no appreciable
understanding of the applicable laws of physics. In fact, I see gross
ignorance. You are completely unaware of how radiation behaves in space. I
have provided suitable analogies and facts. You have not responded to them.
You have merely continued to pursue your same ignorant line of questioning.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org