Moon Laws

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.

In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
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.

The things that can be built cheaply in China tend to also be the things
that can be shipped cheaply to the US. Ever go to China and try to buy
consumer electronics? Ever notice how they tend to be the same price as in
the US? This was a big disappointment for me the first time I went. I
thought I could pick up all kinds of neat toys for cheap, but I was lucky
to get 10-20% off a typical US price. If your Chinese customers' money
buys X electronic widgets in China, it'll buy about X electronic widgets
in the US after you convert it. Once again, PPP GDP is the wrong number.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

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?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

On 12 okt, 06:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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.

I cannot 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'.

Quote text to support this.

The full text of the convention can be found at
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceL...s_26_2777.html

From Article I, (c)-(d):

(c) The term "launching State" means:

(i) A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;

(ii) A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched;

(d) The term "space object"

We see here a full and complete list of manners whereby a state can be
a "launching state". By 1) launching the space object, 2) procuring
the launching of the space object, 3) being a state from whose
territory the space object is launched and 4) being a state from whose
facility the space object was launched. And in no other manner.
Specifically, presence of a foreign citizen aboard a space object does
NOT make the country of citizenship a "launching state", because it is
not listed as definition of "launching state".

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.

No. The Convention takes responsibility to "a launching state". The
Convention does mention, in Article III:

by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.

If Israel is not a launching State then Israel is not responsible for
any persons, including Israeli citizens, aboard the space object. If
USA is the sole launching State then USA is solely responsible for all
persons aboard, including foreign citizens.
:
:
: 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.

Because the treaty does not go any further - because the treaty does
not want to go any further.

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

Read it again, you dumb ****. Look for the phrase I used.

Nations are held responsible for the actions of their citizens.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 12 okt, 06:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: 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.
:
:I cannot 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'.
:
:Quote text to support this.
:
:The full text of the convention can be found at
:http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceL...s_26_2777.html
:
:From Article I, (c)-(d):
:
: (c) The term "launching State" means:
:
: (i) A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
:
: (ii) A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched;
:
: (d) The term "space object"
:
:We see here a full and complete list of manners whereby a state can be
:a "launching state". By 1) launching the space object, 2) procuring
:the launching of the space object, 3) being a state from whose
:territory the space object is launched and 4) being a state from whose
:facility the space object was launched. And in no other manner.
:Specifically, presence of a foreign citizen aboard a space object does
:NOT make the country of citizenship a "launching state", because it is
:not listed as definition of "launching state".
:
: 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.
:
:No. The Convention takes responsibility to "a launching state". The
:Convention does mention, in Article III:
:
: by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.
:
:If Israel is not a launching State then Israel is not responsible for
:any persons, including Israeli citizens, aboard the space object. If
:USA is the sole launching State then USA is solely responsible for all
ersons aboard, including foreign citizens.
: :
: :
: : 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.
:
:Because the treaty does not go any further - because the treaty does
:not want to go any further.
:
: In other words, it is *NOTHING* like Maritime Law.
:

On 13 okt, 14:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Read it again,

I did. Check below.

Look for the phrase I used.

I looked for it and found it:

Article III:
:
: by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if : the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is
: responsible.


Nations are held responsible for the actions of their citizens.

No. The treaty does not mention "citizens". The treaty mentions
"persons". And the treaty only makes persons for whom a "launching
state" is responsible. If a state is not a "launching state" then it
is not responsible for any persons.

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 12 okt, 06:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: 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.
:
:I cannot 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'.
:
:Quote text to support this.
:
:The full text of the convention can be found at
:http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceL...s_26_2777.html
:
:From Article I, (c)-(d):
:
: (c) The term "launching State" means:
:
: (i) A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
:
: (ii) A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched;
:
: (d) The term "space object"
:
:We see here a full and complete list of manners whereby a state can be
:a "launching state". By 1) launching the space object, 2) procuring
:the launching of the space object, 3) being a state from whose
:territory the space object is launched and 4) being a state from whose
:facility the space object was launched. And in no other manner.
:Specifically, presence of a foreign citizen aboard a space object does
:NOT make the country of citizenship a "launching state", because it is
:not listed as definition of "launching state".
:
: 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.
:
:No. The Convention takes responsibility to "a launching state". The
:Convention does mention, in Article III:
:
: by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.
:
:If Israel is not a launching State then Israel is not responsible for
:any persons, including Israeli citizens, aboard the space object. If
:USA is the sole launching State then USA is solely responsible for all
ersons aboard, including foreign citizens.
: :
: :
: : 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.
:
:Because the treaty does not go any further - because the treaty does
:not want to go any further.
:
: In other words, it is *NOTHING* like Maritime Law.
:

Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:

:On 13 okt, 14:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Read it again,
:
:I did. Check below.
:
: Look for the phrase I used.
:
:I looked for it and found it:
:
:Article III:
: :
: : by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if : the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is
: : responsible.
:
:
: Nations are held responsible for the actions of their citizens.
:
:No. The treaty does not mention "citizens". The treaty mentions
:"persons". And the treaty only makes persons for whom a "launching
:state" is responsible. If a state is not a "launching state" then it
:is not responsible for any persons.
:

That's not the way the US government currently reads it, which is why
US citizens would have to give up their citizenship to work for a
foreign-based space company not under the control of the United
States.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

:"David Johnston" wrote in message
.. .
: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:09:05 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
: wrote:
:
:"Space Cadet" wrote in message
roups.com...
: Hi All
: Got this email from a friend of mine:
:
:Hi all, I am working on a new lesson for my second graders focusing
on
:Moon Laws. If YOU were given the task of creating a constitution,
:laws,
:bill of rights for people in a future lunar colony what would YOU
:include? I'd love to have your input! Thanks,
:
: My first thought is that doesn't the OST say or at least imply that
: the country that launches an object/probe/spacecraft is responsible
: for said object? And whatever rule of law applies to that country
: would apply to said object?
: Even if you would go with a privately funded moon colony. That
: company would be based on some nation on Earth, and whatever laws
: apply to that country would apply to the colony?
: What about an international colony, would it be the country that
funds
: most of the colony? Or do international laws/treaties apply hear?
: What is the setup for ISS?
:
:
: Just my $0.02
:
: Space Cadet
:
: derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom
:
:
: Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter
:
: http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/
:
: The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
: scientific foundation formed to further scientific
: study and development of the moon.
:
:
:Given that any puncture of a habitat or space suit is potentially fatal
:for
:all inhabitants, I'd definitely include in the constitution or body of
law
:a
:ban on private ownership of firearms.
:
: And a guarantee of the right to bear swords. Swords are cool.
:
:I was thinking about this, but why not simply have the anti-firearms law
and
:another law against carrying a concealed weapon. Swords are not
concealed,
:so....
:

Ok. I'll be the guy with the hand grenade. It's not concealed and
it's not a firearm....


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

We'll check if it works by sealing you in a bubble habitat without a
pressure suit and let you proof-fire it.

OK, obviously I forgot to idiot-proof the laws. No firearms, no explosive
weapons.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Oct 12, 9:37 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
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.

The things that can be built cheaply in China tend to also be the things
that can be shipped cheaply to the US.

Even so the same loss of value that's created by the factors you
indicate that erode value when exporting dollars can be turned to
advantage if you buy things with those dollars earned in country.

Ever go to China and try to buy
consumer electronics?

I invented the first computer based cash register, and the first
credit card scanner in the gas pump. I built most of my components in
Taiwan (this being the 1980s) - so yeah. I did final assembly and
programming and installation in the US for my US customers. I also
sold product in Taiwan to achieve the same advantages I'm describing.
If the market in Taiwan, or China is say 1/2 that of the US, and you
build ALL your product in China - you gain huge advantages at the
current exchange rates by dominating the market in both countries -
even if you aren't getting the dollars out, you're getting the
equivalent product out.

Ever notice how they tend to be the same price as in
the US?

Depends on the product and where in the supply chain you sit. Many
folks don't pay anything for their cell phone handsets. If you're
selling a service like cell phones, you want your handset to be throw
away to minimize resistance to entry for your recurring income.
Recurring pricing for the type of overcapacity I'm forced to build in
the space based system will be sold the same way tickets at a large
theater are sold - with different price points for different buyers
based on demand curve for each population that allows you to maximize
profits from the given global conditions at the point in time you're
operating. As the world grows richer, revenues will increase strongly
over time providing stupendous rates of return for the system owners.


This was a big disappointment for me the first time I went. I
thought I could pick up all kinds of neat toys for cheap, but I was lucky
to get 10-20% off a typical US price.

Depends on the volume you are purchasing. They are as aware of price
worldwide at you are. If you spent over $100,000 on any one item,
you'd see huge decreases in price. In fact if you offered to buy say
small format receipt printers in $100,000 lots you could expect to pay
1/4 the wholesale price in the US, and be given a handful of free
printers as samples.

If your Chinese customers' money
buys X electronic widgets in China, it'll buy about X electronic widgets
in the US after you convert it.

As with anything depends on the details. The tourist market is
different than the wholesale market, so your anecdotal experience
doesn't really relate to the facts as you stated them before or
reality. IT seems that you are picking and choosing 'facts' to win the
argument rather than to understand the reality involved.

The factors that you describe which restrict your ability to draw cash
out of China do operate. These same factors operate to leverage the
value of products taken out of China. I mention building handsets
because China is the low cost producer. So, setting up a production
plant obviously is different than walking down the street buying
single units from vendors.

Once again, PPP GDP is the wrong number.

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. Now, it could be that if the demand for
services is high in China and low elsewhere, that the effects you talk
about if I were foolish enough to take out low value cash, would
create a limit to the amount of stuff I could sell to the Chinese -
even if the demand were there. But I would be a fool of the first
order if I shrugged my shoulders as you suggest and accept that
situation. Why? Because the money I earn in China can be used to
purchase something that has a HUGE advantage when shipped out of
China. I hesitate to say what it is, because I haven't looked up what
item is most advantageous. But it doesn't matter, the low values for
currency come from SOMEWHERE and if they don't as you wrongly suggest
come from the relative advantage of China in its construction - that
means they are more highly concentrated in another commodity. And I
am free to buy that commodity export it from China and sell it at a
huge advantage - in sufficient volumes to cover my sales. That is,
the disadvantage cash has can be turned to advantage with the purchase
of products for exports, and if they're not evenly distributed across
the board, then that means they're concentrated in something, and that
something is what I'd buy until I bought all my Chinese cash would
allow me to buy, and then sell it at a huge markup making even more
profit. So, your analysis really indicates that if there are
variations across export products in China - all I need do is earn
money in China, buy those products with the greatest leverage and sell
those outside of China. So your point sadly, is still wrong.



--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Mike Dworetsky" wrote:
: :
: :I was thinking about this, but why not simply have the anti-firearms law and
: :another law against carrying a concealed weapon. Swords are not concealed,
: :so....
: :
:
: Ok. I'll be the guy with the hand grenade. It's not concealed and
: it's not a firearm....
:
:
:We'll check if it works by sealing you in a bubble habitat without a
ressure suit and let you proof-fire it.
:
:OK, obviously I forgot to idiot-proof the laws. No firearms, no explosive
:weapons.
:

Just pointing out how stupid your original definition was.

Shall I continue? Spear guns, blasting explosives and nails, air
rifles, crossbows, flammable liquids, ...

Oh, and you still have to define 'explosive weapon'...

If I wear a sword and a long cloak, is the sword now 'concealed'?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn