Moon key to space future?

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in
:

Henry Spencer wrote:
Which is, as it happens, completely untrue. It is very nearly
equally easy to get into a lunar polar orbit.

Right. The reason such an orbit wasn't used during Apollo was because
the moon's rotation would have taken the lander out from under the
plane of the orbit. The LEM crew would have had to wait two weeks
before they could launch and rejoin the CSM.

That's true for the general case, where the LM lands somewhere other than
the pole. But if the LM lands at or near the pole, it will remain in the
CSM orbital plane and will get a launch window each orbit.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my autoresponders get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces. You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail address and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye to
understanding it this time.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes a nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

--

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell?
How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable
(Before Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com
Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com
[Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket]

"James White" wrote in message
news:ua2zb.198787$Dw6.743792@attbi_s02...
Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my autoresponders
get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces. You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail address
and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.
Yes.
In fact he may allready be effectively spamming other people himself by
bouncing like this!. One of the 'tricks' used by spammers, is to attach a
forged return address. Sometimes these addresses are legitimate, and people
bouncing the spam. end up sending this mail on to other legitimate users.
Also the nature of the 'bounce', can be used by some sites to determine that
the address is actually legitimate, and they increase the attempts to send
the junk. :-(

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye to
understanding it this time.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes a
nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

Best Wishes

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.


How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Roger Hamlett wrote:

"James White" wrote in message
news:ua2zb.198787$Dw6.743792@attbi_s02...
Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my autoresponders
get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces. You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail address
and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.
Yes.
In fact he may allready be effectively spamming other people himself by
bouncing like this!. One of the 'tricks' used by spammers, is to attach a
forged return address. Sometimes these addresses are legitimate, and people
bouncing the spam. end up sending this mail on to other legitimate users.
Also the nature of the 'bounce', can be used by some sites to determine that
the address is actually legitimate, and they increase the attempts to send
the junk. :-(

I send them a dozen bogus replies and they're going to consider me a
useful target? Right. I get maybe one or two spams a day, so my
approach seems to work better than Mr. White's.

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye to
understanding it this time.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes a
nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

Best Wishes

James White wrote:

Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my autoresponders get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces. You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail address and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.

So you provide them with fake information on your fake order, genius.

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye to
understanding it this time.

Ad hominem attacks appear to be your substitute for logic.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes a nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

Your definition of a "market" was interesting for someone who claims to
know something about marketing - you had it exactly backwards (to the
extent that it made any sense at all). If your point was exactly the
opposite of mine then you must think you can market a sow's ear as a
silk purse. Go right ahead. Furthermore I have NEVER said that a
private sector RLV development makes economic sense for investors.

Go breath into a paper bag for a few minutes and you'll feel better.

plonk
--

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell?
How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable
(Before Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com
Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com
[Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket]

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


Roger Hamlett wrote:

"James White" wrote in message
news:ua2zb.198787$Dw6.743792@attbi_s02...
Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam,
but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my
autoresponders
get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces.
You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a
PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail
address
and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.
Yes.
In fact he may allready be effectively spamming other people himself by
bouncing like this!. One of the 'tricks' used by spammers, is to attach
a
forged return address. Sometimes these addresses are legitimate, and
people
bouncing the spam. end up sending this mail on to other legitimate
users.
Also the nature of the 'bounce', can be used by some sites to determine
that
the address is actually legitimate, and they increase the attempts to
send
the junk. :-(

I send them a dozen bogus replies and they're going to consider me a
useful target? Right. I get maybe one or two spams a day, so my
approach seems to work better than Mr. White's.
Basically, spammers want to know if anybody is there. It costs them
effectively nothing to send an email, so if there is even the faintest
chance of the mail being read, sending is 'worthwhile'. The number of emails
a day you receive, is dependant on how long you have been on the web, and
the locations where your email address has been published (this makes it
very awkward to 'advertise' an email address). Most 'bounce' programs, or
spurious replies, are signals that there is a legitimate address at this
point. The exception, is where a full 'mail server' is setup, and can
generate proper 'invalid address' bounces. In the past a bounce did
sometimes work, but recently some spammers have started scanning the bounces
to detect the difference between 'soft' bounces, and genuine network
bounces. On top of this though, a couple of recent viruses, and some
spammers, 'spoof' the 'reply to' address, so the mail _appears_ to come from
somebody who is completely innocent of sending the spam. Some of your 'spam'
messages, may themself be bounces from other people, thinking that _you_ are
originating spam. Others will just be bounced back to you. Both routes,
increase the amount of network traffic generated by the original spam, and
the costs in performance terms for other users rise.
The number you receive, is 99% determined by how long you have been on the
net, and how much your address is publicised, which is why the number of
spam posts you are seeing is less than Mr White's. It takes a very
significant time for an address to appear in the larger databases. After a
while, you will find the problem rising. This is why changing email
addresses after a few months is becoming a common 'defence'.
Realistically, it is the zero cost, that makes bulk spamming to the current
level happen. Though the concept of 'free' communication seems so nice, you
end up paying for it in the time/work involved in dealing with the junk. If
you had to pay a tiny fee, something like 1 cent/mail/recipient, if you sent
more than ten emails a day, going to more than four targets, the rate would
reduce from the current 'flood' to a 'trickle'. However the current
infrastructure makes achieving this, and agreeing on it very hard.

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye
to
understanding it this time.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that
we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the
markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets.
I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies
have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes
a
nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

Best Wishes

Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


Roger Hamlett wrote:

"James White" wrote in message
news:ua2zb.198787$Dw6.743792@attbi_s02...
Dick Morris
How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam,
but I

I don't believe you understand much of anything. Even my
autoresponders
get
spam and send automatic replies resulting in undeliverable bounces.
You
can't spam the spammers back because they HATE SPAM and prevent its
reception on their end by not providing any contact info without a
PAID
ORDER. If you'd like to try your method just send me your e-mail
address
and
I'll forward you the 300+ spams a day I get.
Yes.
In fact he may allready be effectively spamming other people himself by
bouncing like this!. One of the 'tricks' used by spammers, is to attach
a
forged return address. Sometimes these addresses are legitimate, and
people
bouncing the spam. end up sending this mail on to other legitimate
users.
Also the nature of the 'bounce', can be used by some sites to determine
that
the address is actually legitimate, and they increase the attempts to
send
the junk. :-(

I send them a dozen bogus replies and they're going to consider me a
useful target? Right. I get maybe one or two spams a day, so my
approach seems to work better than Mr. White's.
Basically, spammers want to know if anybody is there. It costs them
effectively nothing to send an email, so if there is even the faintest
chance of the mail being read, sending is 'worthwhile'. The number of emails
a day you receive, is dependant on how long you have been on the web, and
the locations where your email address has been published (this makes it
very awkward to 'advertise' an email address). Most 'bounce' programs, or
spurious replies, are signals that there is a legitimate address at this
point. The exception, is where a full 'mail server' is setup, and can
generate proper 'invalid address' bounces. In the past a bounce did
sometimes work, but recently some spammers have started scanning the bounces
to detect the difference between 'soft' bounces, and genuine network
bounces. On top of this though, a couple of recent viruses, and some
spammers, 'spoof' the 'reply to' address, so the mail _appears_ to come from
somebody who is completely innocent of sending the spam. Some of your 'spam'
messages, may themself be bounces from other people, thinking that _you_ are
originating spam. Others will just be bounced back to you. Both routes,
increase the amount of network traffic generated by the original spam, and
the costs in performance terms for other users rise.
The number you receive, is 99% determined by how long you have been on the
net, and how much your address is publicised, which is why the number of
spam posts you are seeing is less than Mr White's. It takes a very
significant time for an address to appear in the larger databases. After a
while, you will find the problem rising. This is why changing email
addresses after a few months is becoming a common 'defence'.
Realistically, it is the zero cost, that makes bulk spamming to the current
level happen. Though the concept of 'free' communication seems so nice, you
end up paying for it in the time/work involved in dealing with the junk. If
you had to pay a tiny fee, something like 1 cent/mail/recipient, if you sent
more than ten emails a day, going to more than four targets, the rate would
reduce from the current 'flood' to a 'trickle'. However the current
infrastructure makes achieving this, and agreeing on it very hard.


You seem to know an awful lot about spamming. ;-)

don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Duh, follow the marginal costs. Retake your college course with an eye
to
understanding it this time.

or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that
we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the
markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets.
I

And my point remains exactly the opposite---and the economic studies
have
proved my point time and time again. "Build it, they will come" makes
a
nice
sappy movie but IT IS NOT reality.

Best Wishes

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there
any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but
I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam
recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll
be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.


How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Web pages. Phone calls, etc.

Add to the fact that much so called "spam" these days are merely conduits to
send worms to infect your machine and the sender expects no response (other
than the worm sending back a "I'm installed and now own machine XYZ") and
you'll see this doesn't work very well.

Dick Morris wrote in
:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...

James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every
problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is
there any market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam
them back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to
spam, but I think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness.
Spam recipients should by all means reply to spam - early and
often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So
you'll be hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.

How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Generally their spam emails send you to a web site, nowadays.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.