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
  #81  
Old October 14th 07, 01:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
David Johnston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Moon Laws

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

David Johnston wrote:

:On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:24:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:David Johnston wrote:
:
::On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::No, it does not appear that that is the case at all.
::
::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship
::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially
::responsible?
::
::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is
::quite different.
::
::How is it different?
::
:
:In just about every way possible.
:
:I'm asking for specifics here.
:

Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following:

There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in
country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by
nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G.
The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes
damages.

Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may
presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the
damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility,
depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or
something else.

Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible.

See why I say it's different in just about every way possible?


I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States
responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an
American billionaire who paid for a joyride.
  #82  
Old October 14th 07, 01:53 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

David Johnston wrote:

:On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:08:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:David Johnston wrote:
:
::On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:24:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::David Johnston wrote:
::
:::On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 07:24:51 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::No, it does not appear that that is the case at all.
:::
:::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship
:::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially
:::responsible?
:::
:::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is
:::quite different.
:::
:::How is it different?
:::
::
::In just about every way possible.
::
::I'm asking for specifics here.
::
:
:Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following:
:
:There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in
:country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by
:nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G.
:The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes
:damages.
:
:Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may
:presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the
:damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility,
:depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or
:something else.
:
:Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible.
:
:See why I say it's different in just about every way possible?
:
:I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States
:responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an
:American billionaire who paid for a joyride.

Did I say that, or do you just not read English?


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
  #83  
Old October 14th 07, 02:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Moon Laws

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:21:36 GMT, in a place far, far away, David
Johnston made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

::If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship
::with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially
::responsible?
::
::Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is
::quite different.
::
::How is it different?
::
:
:In just about every way possible.
:
:I'm asking for specifics here.
:

Already given in detail elsewhere. However, consider the following:

There is a ship built in country A, owned by company B chartered in
country C, most recently launched from country D, and crewed by
nationals from country E, sailing under a master, F, from country G.
The question is just who is held responsible if said ship causes
damages.

Under Maritime Law, B bears primary responsibility, although F may
presumably also be sued for damages if shiphandling errors caused the
damage. Either B, F or both will bear any criminal responsibility,
depending on whether the damages were caused by shiphandling errors or
something else.

Under Space Law, countries A, C, D, E, and G are responsible.

See why I say it's different in just about every way possible?


I'm sorry I don't believe that that law would hold the United States
responsible for the actions of a Russian spacecraft containing an
American billionaire who paid for a joyride.


Of course it wouldn't. Though I don't know why you think that this
has any bearing on the present discussion.
  #85  
Old October 14th 07, 03:25 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 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the
fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you
are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building
electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because
you said it - false as it is.


Reading comprehension is essential.


I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying.

I never said anything remotely like
that.


Like what exactly?

I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at
worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the
country of manufacture.


Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable
goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my
commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading
comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your
logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the
0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there.
Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase
participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you
said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making
nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and
giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters
about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were
one of those supposed betters.

What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha..

Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step.

China produces some things more efficiently than the US.
The US produces other things more efficiently than China.

That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one
another.

Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by
offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take
whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers
the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading
whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller..


--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software



  #86  
Old October 14th 07, 04:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote:

In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the
fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you
are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building
electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because
you said it - false as it is.


Reading comprehension is essential.


I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying.

I never said anything remotely like
that.


Like what exactly?

I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at
worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the
country of manufacture.


Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable
goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my
commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading
comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your
logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the
0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there.
Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase
participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you
said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making
nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and
giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters
about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were
one of those supposed betters.

What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha..

Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step.

China produces some things more efficiently than the US.
The US produces other things more efficiently than China.

That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one
another.

Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by
offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take
whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers
the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading
whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller..





--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting
used to the taste?
- Brad Guth -

  #87  
Old October 14th 07, 12:40 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 13, 11:25 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote:





On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote:


In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the
fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you
are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building
electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because
you said it - false as it is.


Reading comprehension is essential.


I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying.


I never said anything remotely like
that.


Like what exactly?


I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at
worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the
country of manufacture.


Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable
goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my
commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading
comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your
logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the
0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there.
Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase
participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you
said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making
nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and
giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters
about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were
one of those supposed betters.


What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha..


Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step.


China produces some things more efficiently than the US.
The US produces other things more efficiently than China.


That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one
another.


Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by
offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take
whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers
the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading
whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller..


--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting
used to the taste?
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ah nowhere man, I thought we'd lost you. Didn't expect to see you
here. I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they
call out the voice of unreason. Good job Brad. Keep up the good
work!

  #88  
Old October 14th 07, 02:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 14, 4:40 am, wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:25 pm, BradGuth wrote:





On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, wrote:


On Oct 13, 9:35 pm, Michael Ash wrote:


In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
Nonsense. You are drawing things from hither and yon and ignoring the
fact that money is fungible. Lets accept the stupid notion that you
are proposing that China has only a 20% cost advantage in building
electronic products. That's not true, but lets say its true because
you said it - false as it is.


Reading comprehension is essential.


I agree. You're not getting what I'm saying.


I never said anything remotely like
that.


Like what exactly?


I said that the cost of *buying the components in the US* is at
worst 10-20% higher than the cost of buying these same components in the
country of manufacture.


Right. I'm talking about the cost of manufacturing comparable
goods. I think if you read the definition I gave for PPP my
commentary is perfectly consistent, and it is your reading
comprehension that is in question at this point - as well as your
logic. Recall you started out saying that I'd only be able to get the
0.01% of the market that wasn't well serve. You were wrong there.
Then you said there's no way lower cost services would increase
participation in the telecom marketplace. Then you said - well, you
said whole host of things that made no sense. All the while making
nasty imputations of my lack of intelligence and reading skills and
giving me advice to keep my mouth shut and not talk to my betters
about things I don't understand- all the while inferring that you were
one of those supposed betters.


What an asshole you are. And a stupid one at that. haha..


Lets make it simple. Build it up step by step.


China produces some things more efficiently than the US.
The US produces other things more efficiently than China.


That means there is a net benefit to both countries trade with one
another.


Now for someone who wishes to make money from both populations by
offering products or services to both, it benefits that seller to take
whatever money they make in-country and trade it for whatever offers
the greatest relative advantage to maximize their profits by trading
whatever makes the most money from each population for the seller..


--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


I see that you're still sucking usenet's rotten egg. Are you getting
used to the taste?
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Ah nowhere man, I thought we'd lost you. Didn't expect to see you
here. I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they
call out the voice of unreason. Good job Brad. Keep up the good
work!


Your suggestion of "the voice of unreason" being a good part of this
mostly semitic or pretend-atheist formulated anti-think-tank, of such
a perverted faith-based of skewed damage-control mindset from hell, is
right on the money.

Once we're paying $100/gallon for the remaining fossil or whatever
synfuel, paying $1/kwhr and stuck with having insufficient energy of
most any other kind for creating more of those same liquid synfuels,
at least it'll be a little tough pulling off WWIV over the next round
of phony WMD, as we'll have to use sticks and stones in order to beat
one another to death over what little accessible energy or energy
related products that's left (including food and clean water).

Too bad that out of the 350,000 TW of arriving solar energy that's not
even including the absolutely terrific amounts of gravity/tidal
energy, as such can't be put to any good and clean work. It's as
though anything off-world to these usenet rusemasters doesn't count,
even though such off-world energy (especially of gravity) is 100% in
charge of every accessible inside and out energy of worth on Earth.

Even Jupiter's Io is clearly being thermally forced along by those
local gravity/tidal forces, yet somehow of the much closer mascon
ratio that's of so much greater importance, nearby and orbiting us so
fast doesn't add a watt of planetology energy into our global warming
environment (go figure).
- Brad Guth -

  #89  
Old October 14th 07, 03:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 10, 2:14 am, American wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:24 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:





skreiv:


What nonsense. Just because someone already subscribes doesn't mean
they won't subscribe from you.


True. But it means they'll only subscribe from you if your offering is
significantly better and/or cheaper. The infrastructure they use today
is -already- paid for, marginal cost here of keep using it is very low.


My neighbourhood (~300 houses) recently installed a fiberoptic network.
Cost us aproximately $150K, or ~$500/house if you will, which we got
sponsored from a communication-company by promising to buy service from
them for atleast a year. (since they where competitive anyway, it is
essentially free from our POV)


The network is there though. It's ours, and the operating-costs for
using it the next 20 years is, essentially, nil. We'd need to buy
internet-access from somebody. But that's something for which the price
is already falling like brick of lead. Yeah, we -migth- buy it from you
if your price is cheaper than the competition. Which mean, currently,
less than about $1000/month for 100mpbs symetrical. (but -wont- mean
that targetprice or performance 3, 5 or 10 years from now.....)


So, you can get $3/house from us monthly. Works out to aproximately
$1/person.


How, exactly, are you going to get subscribers for your 50 billion cells
when you used sold us -one- cell, and we're 500 people ? We're among the
best-paying 1% of humans worldwide too.


Only 1.5 billion people have routine access to the internet today and
only 3.0 billion have telephone service. There are nearly 7 billion
people in the world. So, the market is huge.


The market is limited to those who can afford electricty, a computer, a
satelite-modem, -AND- your subscription fee. Unless your satelites are
also magically going to provide electrical power and free computers to
everyone. (which they'll then pay back to you trough the $1/year fee!)


So, by charging $1 per channel per month, you'd make a helluva return
on investment!! And $1 per channel per month would be the high end.
The low end might be $1 per channel per year - and you'd get nearly
total coverage of the market. In this way you'd capture the $90
billion or so per year in telecommunications services.


That market is only $90 billion because rich people pay a lot more than
$1/month or $1/year. The top 10% of users spend the majority of that
money. If you reduce the prices they pay, you shrink the market.


Eivind


The market is already shrunk tight enough! Now it's up to the
providers to explore a more lucrative form of communication
that would expand the market LATERALLY - beyond just
*paid for* electricity, modem, and satelite subscription - THOSE are
just the "children technologies" of mass media.

Now ask yourself this: What would happen if there suddenly
became a source of "portable free energy" that wasn't dependent upon
being attached to the grid? Add to this "scenario" the opportunity for
cheap earth-to-orbit technology and you've suddenly got spectacularly
cheap satelite service.

What then becomes of the important technology? Wasn't it related to
space exploration in the first place? Let me just say there is more
than one way to "tighten" the communications market - one is to, as
you said, reducing the prices that people pay, and the other is to
"loosen" the lateral market enough in order to create newer
hierarchies within the technology. It may be possible then that every
Bolshevik or practicing neocon has an I-phone in his shirt pocket, but
this won't be possible until the market expands beyond L-1.

American- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Sadly, we can't even safely accomplish our moon's L1, much less any
POOF City at Venus L2. We're sequestered well enough below our
protective magnetosphere that's failing us by roughly -.05%/year, and
the SAA zone is still quite lethal to the crew of ISS, and it's only
getting its contour larger and deeper.

Our salty old moon that's saturated in gamma and X-rays is also what's
causing the vast majority of our global warming.

We have not walked on our moon, and the solar system simply is not of
what we've been informed as being that singular or rogue like star of
a complex formation that it is. We have a close relationship to the
Sirius star system, our moon is a fairly new item to Earth, and Venus
(currently w/o moon) is simply much less old than Earth, while Mars is
oddly without salt and simply older than Earth. (go figure)
- Brad Guth -

  #90  
Old October 14th 07, 10:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default Moon Laws

William Mook wrote:

I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they
call out the voice of unreason.


William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"?

Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying
to make life difficult for you, do you?

I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-)

Jim Davis

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 12:53 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.