A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 15th 16, 05:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.


The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.


No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.
  #12  
Old February 15th 16, 03:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.


I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.



  #14  
Old February 15th 16, 04:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable"
and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.


Davoud:
I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Quadibloc:
Yes, I'm sure that _some_ people can afford them, just as some people can
afford Rolex watches. However, the word "affordable" doesn't mean that
_someone_ can afford it, it means that it is low in price and many people can
afford it.


Let us agree to disagree. Affordable means to me that more than one
"someone" can afford it. Astro-Physics, Takahashi, RCOS, BMW, M-B,
Canon, Leica, Nikon, all seem to be doing OK, and not only among 1
percenters.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #15  
Old February 15th 16, 06:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.

I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.


Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over
your head. Maybe.


In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct?
  #16  
Old February 15th 16, 07:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:54:08 -0500, Davoud wrote:
Let us agree to disagree. Affordable means to me that more than one
"someone" can afford it.


By your definition anything, no matter how expensive, will be
"affordable" -- ask the two richest people in the world what they can
afford...
  #17  
Old February 16th 16, 01:33 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Monday, 15 February 2016 12:35:10 UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.

I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar. It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.


Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over
your head. Maybe.


In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct?


Not to a socialist. They tax everything and everyone except welfare BUMS.
  #18  
Old February 16th 16, 12:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.

I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A
few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar.
It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.


Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over
your head. Maybe.


In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting
somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his
spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct?


No, incorrect.

Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for
years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this?
But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If
someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer
And so will his health. If a second job is not taxed the employer will be
able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins. Are you
suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes
and those doing a second job should not?
And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and
give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a
practical way to run an economy.
In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced
employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays.
Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour
shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts
was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2
my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the
deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared.
But they still paid taxes.


  #19  
Old February 16th 16, 02:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.

I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A
few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar.
It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.

Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over
your head. Maybe.


In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting
somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his
spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct?


No, incorrect.

Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for
years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this?


You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings.



But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If
someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer
And so will his health.


In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV.


If a second job is not taxed the employer will be
able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins.


I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period.




Are you
suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes
and those doing a second job should not?


What makes you think that!?

And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and
give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a
practical way to run an economy.


Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax you are not qualified to comment on it.


In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced
employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays.
Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour
shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts
was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2
my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the
deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared.


If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone else be kept from working longer hours if they desire?

But they still paid taxes.


That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice.
  #20  
Old February 16th 16, 03:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

wrote:
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:18:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and
"Questar" are two words that do not go together.

I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who
can afford Questars.


Affordability implies some level of justification for the purchase. A
few months of part time work will yield enough $$$ to buy a Questar.
It will also yield enough $$$ for a 6-inch Dob and a used car.

Or no savings at all, but a subsistence diet and maybe a roof over
your head. Maybe.

In this scenario someone with a full time job would be moonlighting
somewhere in order to raise extra cash. He would be trading some of his
spare time for more money. It hardly seems fair to tax his hard work, correct?


No, incorrect.

Have you done this for extended periods. I worked 65 to 70 hour weeks for
years. I paid taxes on the overtime. Why should I expect not to do this?


You should not pay the tax because, comparatively, you end up with less
spare time and a portion of your earnings and those who didn't work
longer end up with more spare time and a portion of your earnings.



But the quality of the work is hard to keep up when hours are so long. If
someone is moonlighting the quality of work in his first job will suffer
And so will his health.


In many/most situations that will not be the case. YMMV.


If a second job is not taxed the employer will be
able to pay lower wages and nobody except that employer wins.


I am suggesting that income should not be taxed, period.

That's due to your naïveté.




Are you
suggesting that people doing the same job as a first job should pay taxes
and those doing a second job should not?


What makes you think that!?

And don't talk about the "fair tax" which would bankrupt your country and
give the middle class money to the rich. Only the naive could think this a
practical way to run an economy.


Since you do not even understand the very basic ideas behind the fair tax
you are not qualified to comment on it.

That's your cowards get out clause because you don't have any answer to my
criticisms.


In Europe the EC working time directive put an end to this and forced
employers to give their workers decent hours and holidays.
Even after the implementation in the UK I was working three twelve hour
shifts on successive days and it was just bearable. Four twelve hour shifts
was bad. Nobody managed five twelve hour shifts without difficulty. In WW2
my father was working twelve hour shifts in an aircraft factory and the
deaths of younger workers from industrial accidents and sickness soared.


If you were working overtime without difficulty then why should anyone
else be kept from working longer hours if they desire?

I didn't say I worked those hours without difficulty. I implied that
tiredness due to long hours impairs efficiency. That affected me just like
everyone else. It also affected my health like most of those working the
same shifts.

But they still paid taxes.


That they had to pay such taxes is a gross injustice.

If they did not pay taxes that would be the injustice.

I suspect you never worked those kind of hours for extended periods.

The longest shift I ever worked was 36 hours. I remember leaving the lab
but have no other memories until waking up the next morning 12 hours later.




 




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
5" Celestron Schmidt-Cass, Mount on Camera Tripod W. eWatson Amateur Astronomy 3 July 11th 08 03:59 PM
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? [email protected] Policy 2 February 26th 07 08:41 PM
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? Rand Simberg Policy 0 February 7th 07 04:58 PM
Observing the Sun using a home-made "Solar-Shield" orion94nl Amateur Astronomy 1 August 7th 06 01:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 PM.


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.