Transit of Venus on Tuesday

[Keith F. Lynch]

There's a transit of Venus on Tuesday. Harry regretted missing the
last one, eight years ago, but it wasn't visible in California, so
he couldn't have seen it without extensive travel. This one will be
visible in his location. It will be the last transit of Venus for
more than a century. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus,_2012

I'm CCing Harry, as he hasn't posted here since February.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Jun 2, 1:34 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> There's a transit of Venus on Tuesday.  Harry regretted missing the
> last one, eight years ago, but it wasn't visible in California, so
> he couldn't have seen it without extensive travel.  This one will be
> visible in his location.  It will be the last transit of Venus for
> more than a century.  Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus,_2012

A local astronomy group is setting up telescopes at three places here
in Victoria, for people to come by & see the transit. I might make it
to the group on Mount Tolmie. Maybe ask them a question like, "If
Venus actually hits the sun, could that cause lots of comets and could
the heat of the comets light fire to the Earth?"

Karl Johanson

[Keith F. Lynch]

karl.j...@gmail.com <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A local astronomy group is setting up telescopes at three places
> here in Victoria, for people to come by & see the transit. I might
> make it to the group on Mount Tolmie.

I hope you do. It's one of nature's least impressive spectacles.
A truly twice-in-a-lifetime experience.

Of all the people who saw the 2004 transit of Venus, I may be the one
who learned of it from the oldest source -- a 19th century astronomy
book, which listed the correct 2004 date for that event.

> Maybe ask them a question like, "If Venus actually hits the sun,
> could that cause lots of comets and could the heat of the comets
> light fire to the Earth?"

It's no more likely to hit the sun during the transit than at any
other time, i.e. not at all.

It shouldn't be too difficult to calculate how much energy would be
released by such a collision. Of course you'd have to make up a
number for its impact speed, since on its current trajectory there
will be no impact. Where all that energy would go is an interesting
question. In the best case, it would go into making the sun slightly
brighter for a long time. In the worst case, it would go into one
brief blinding flash of light. The latter might indeed be bright
enough to start fires on Earth -- I haven't run the numbers. But I'm
sure it wouldn't cause any comets, and that even if it did, comets
aren't hot and can't set fire to anything.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <jqgn08$8m2$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>karl.j...@gmail.com <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe ask them a question like, "If Venus actually hits the sun,
>> could that cause lots of comets and could the heat of the comets
>> light fire to the Earth?"
>
>It's no more likely to hit the sun during the transit than at any
>other time, i.e. not at all.

Karl can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a definite feeling
that he knew that already.

--
David Goldfarb |"Bagels can be an enormous force for good or
goldf...@gmail.com | for evil. It is up to us to decide how we
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | will use them."
| -- Daniel M. Pinkwater

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Jun 3, 7:53 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <jqgn08$8m...@reader1.panix.com>,

> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>

> >karl.johan...@gmail.com <karl.johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Maybe ask them a question like, "If Venus actually hits the sun,
> >> could that cause lots of comets and could the heat of the comets
> >> light fire to the Earth?"
>
> >It's no more likely to hit the sun during the transit than at any
> >other time, i.e. not at all.
>
> Karl can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a definite feeling
> that he knew that already.

Yuppers. My delivery was pretty dry, so easy to assume I wasn't
ironic. At a recent panel on science flaws in SF I brought up the fear
of the Jupiter II burning up from 'the heat of a comet' in an episode
of "Lost in Space."

Karl Johanson

[Marcus L. Rowland]

In message
<8314444a-4042-4866...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"karl.j...@gmail.com" <karl.j...@gmail.com> writes

Annoyingly it'll only be visible for the last hour in the UK (5AM to 6AM
BST), so pretty low on the horizon, I doubt I'll get to see it.

Fortunately the last one in 2004 was a bit better timed, from my point
of view, and I got pictures from about half way through, using a long
lens with a sheet of silver mylar foil (the stuff used for emergency
blankets etc.) over the end of the lens, worked pretty well. I've got an
animated gif on photobucket:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/MarcusRowland/transit.gif

Unfortunately I wasn't able to use a tripod for this, and had the camera
held a little crooked for the last one - for some reason I didn't
correct for it properly when I made the animation, and I now can't find
the original prints to rescan and fix it.
--
Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com
www.forgottenfutures.org
www.forgottenfutures.co.uk
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> There's a transit of Venus on Tuesday. Harry regretted missing the
> last one, eight years ago, but it wasn't visible in California, so
> he couldn't have seen it without extensive travel. This one will be
> visible in his location. It will be the last transit of Venus for
> more than a century. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus,_2012

I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
my theory at why I couldn't see it).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Joel Polowin]

On Jun 5, 10:06 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
> such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
> my theory at why I couldn't see it).

I did the same thing, with the same result. I even tried to use
a large magnifying glass to increase the amount of sunlight on
the pinhole, allowing me to increase the size of my image, but
the setup was too wobbly. I suppose I would have had better
results if I'd had some way to create a dark environment to
view the image in.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

I've been watching on APOD - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 5, 10:43 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:40:39, Joel Polowin <jpolo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 5, 10:06 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
> >> such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
> >> my theory at why I couldn't see it).
>
> >I did the same thing, with the same result.  I even tried to use
> >a large magnifying glass to increase the amount of sunlight on
> >the pinhole, allowing me to increase the size of my image, but
> >the setup was too wobbly.  I suppose I would have had better
> >results if I'd had some way to create a dark environment to
> >view the image in.
>
> I've been watching on APOD -http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Same here - socked with clouds in MA. They looked like that started to
break up after 7:30, but I had to go to a lodge meeting. Snuck peaks
at APOD on my smartphone during the meeting. By the time I got out, it
was night, and clear.

pt

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:

> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
> such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
> my theory at why I couldn't see it).

I'm not surprised. A co-worker brought a few pairs of eclipse-grade
glasses today, and even through those Venus was barely perceptible.
Still pretty damn cool, if you ask me.

(Well, hot.)

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Alan Woodford]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:43:01 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:40:39, Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 5, 10:06�pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
>>> such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
>>> my theory at why I couldn't see it).
>>
>>I did the same thing, with the same result. I even tried to use
>>a large magnifying glass to increase the amount of sunlight on
>>the pinhole, allowing me to increase the size of my image, but
>>the setup was too wobbly. I suppose I would have had better
>>results if I'd had some way to create a dark environment to
>>view the image in.
>
>I've been watching on APOD - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

The sun popped out from a gap in the clouds here, about 2 minutes
-after- Venus left the face of the sun :-)

Still, I got to see the one in 2004, so I shouldn't complain too much!

Alan "reminded of 1999" Woodford

The Greying Lensman!

[David Goldfarb]

In article <ylfkpq9d...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
>such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
>my theory at why I couldn't see it).

I went to the Houston Museum of Natural Science (with a brief stop
along the way to bow on behalf of Kip Williams towards the building
that I think now stands on the site where Bob Newhart recorded his
first comedy album) and stood in line for quite a long time. While
in line, I was able to borrow somebody's filter glasses, and I *think*
I saw a tiny dot on the sun; a couple of other people had projection
telescopes set up that definitely showed the solar disk with a dot
in it; at last I was able to look through a telescope with a solar
filter and definitely see a large disk of the sun, with some sunspots,
and the shadow of Venus.

I'm not sure it was really worth standing around in the heat (although
fortunately the summer so far has been mild here) but after all it was
a chance that won't come again.

--
David Goldfarb |
goldf...@gmail.com | What if there were no hypothetical situations?
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Jun 5, 10:55 am, "Marcus L. Rowland" <forgottenfutu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In message
> <8314444a-4042-4866-8661-e73a69712...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "karl.johan...@gmail.com" <karl.johan...@gmail.com> writes

>
> >On Jun 2, 1:34 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> There's a transit of Venus on Tuesday.  Harry regretted missing the
> >> last one, eight years ago, but it wasn't visible in California, so
> >> he couldn't have seen it without extensive travel.  This one will be
> >> visible in his location.  It will be the last transit of Venus for
> >> more than a century.  Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus,_2012
>
> >A local astronomy group is setting up telescopes at three places here
> >in Victoria, for people to come by & see the transit. I might make it
> >to the group on Mount Tolmie. Maybe ask them a question like, "If
> >Venus actually hits the sun, could that cause lots of comets and could
> >the heat of the comets light fire to the Earth?"
>
> >Karl Johanson
>
> Annoyingly it'll only be visible for the last hour in the UK (5AM to 6AM
> BST), so pretty low on the horizon, I doubt I'll get to see it.
>
> Fortunately the last one in 2004 was a bit better timed, from my point
> of view, and I got pictures from about half way through, using a long
> lens with a sheet of silver mylar foil (the stuff used for emergency
> blankets etc.) over the end of the lens, worked pretty well. I've got an
> animated gif on photobucket:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/MarcusRowland/transit.gif
>
> Unfortunately I wasn't able to use a tripod for this, and had the camera
> held a little crooked for the last one - for some reason I didn't
> correct for it properly when I made the animation, and I now can't find
> the original prints to rescan and fix it.

Cool stuff. I tried to get a shot with my cam-corder and some welder's
glass. I needed to adjust the settings, but didn't have time.

Karl Johanson

[Tim McDaniel]

In article
<fc26b69f-f580-485c...@qq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

karl.j...@gmail.com <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Cool stuff. I tried to get a shot with my cam-corder and some
>welder's glass. I needed to adjust the settings, but didn't have
>time.

I saw a fair number of people taking pictures with their mobile phones
at the eyepiece of the telescopes, or of the projection behind the
binoculars. Less explicable to me were the two who took pictures of a
laptop that was displaying the NASA Web feed.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <m2txypk...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
>> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but
>> got such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least
>> that's my theory at why I couldn't see it).
>
>I'm not surprised. A co-worker brought a few pairs of eclipse-grade
>glasses today, and even through those Venus was barely perceptible.

I went to the gathering on the top of a University of Texas-Austin
building, I think the science building. It was a joint project of the
UT astronomy club and the Austin astronomy club. They had about 6
telescopes (two with hydrogen alpha (?) filters that showed red images
with filaments, the rest with white-light filters that washed out such
details). They had a number of pairs of eclipse glasses. They had a
projection: a cardboard box aimed at the Sun with binoculars inserted
in one side and projecting on white paper on the inside of the
opposide side. They had a heliostat a few stories below the roof.

BTW: I got there about 4:45, with a scheduled start time of 5 and
first contact at 5:05 local. There were probably 150 or so people
ahead of me in line. By 5:10, the line had wrapped in the hall, so
probably over 200. When I left at 6:30 (having sampled all of the
above), the line extended down the hall and down the stairs ... all
the way to the ground, 13 stories below. I do hope that everyone got
a chance to see it. I think they were NOT expecting anywhere near the
swarm [1], and they should have been moving people thru faster.

Anyway, I easily saw the dot of Venus with the eclipse glasses, and I
could not see any sunspots. With the various telescopes, I could see
Venus and a number of sunspots, but I think more with some telescopes
than others.

[1] They said they got nowhere near that many for the annular
eclipse. I would have shown up for that, but a Web page I consulted
said that it wasn't visible at all from Austin!

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[David Goldfarb]

According to a news story I read about the transit, John Philip Sousa
composed a "Transit of Venus March" in 1883 (the year following the
last transit but one). Curious, I looked it up on YouTube...and
found that it sounds like most of Sousa's other marches. (A connoisseur
of marches might find strong distinguishing characteristics among
them. I'm not one.)

--
David Goldfarb |"To summarize the summary of the summary:
goldf...@gmail.com | People are a problem."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:40:39, Joel Polowin <jpol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 5, 10:06 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>> I made a quick try before dinner at using pinhole projection, but got
>>> such a small image I couldn't see the shadow of Venus (at least that's
>>> my theory at why I couldn't see it).
>>
>>I did the same thing, with the same result. I even tried to use
>>a large magnifying glass to increase the amount of sunlight on
>>the pinhole, allowing me to increase the size of my image, but
>>the setup was too wobbly. I suppose I would have had better
>>results if I'd had some way to create a dark environment to
>>view the image in.
>
> I've been watching on APOD - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything I
could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort of" seen
the transit; not live.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything I
> could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort of"
> seen the transit; not live.

By that standard, you can also see the two 19th-century transits
of Venus.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> I'm not surprised. A co-worker brought a few pairs of eclipse-grade
> glasses today, and even through those Venus was barely perceptible.
> Still pretty damn cool, if you ask me.

Unfortunately, it was overcast here. At least I saw the last one,
eight years ago. I still have the "eclipse-grade glasses" I got
for that event, but they didn't get any use yesterday. I wonder
if they'll last until the next one.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything I
>> could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort of"
>> seen the transit; not live.
>
> By that standard, you can also see the two 19th-century transits
> of Venus.

Well...not in real-time while it's happening. The difference between
electronic mediation and purely optical mediation is smaller, it seems
to me.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything
>>> I could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort
>>> of" seen the transit; not live.

>> By that standard, you can also see the two 19th-century transits
>> of Venus.

> Well...not in real-time while it's happening. The difference
> between electronic mediation and purely optical mediation is
> smaller, it seems to me.

There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
a video of the convention.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:50:16, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>>> One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything
>>>> I could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort
>>>> of" seen the transit; not live.
>
>>> By that standard, you can also see the two 19th-century transits
>>> of Venus.
>
>> Well...not in real-time while it's happening. The difference
>> between electronic mediation and purely optical mediation is
>> smaller, it seems to me.
>
>There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
>a video of the convention.

When one doesn't have welder's glasses and finds a pinhole projector
unsatisfactory [1], it has to do. In fact, it was, in some ways
superior as I got to watch the whole thing instead of just the part
where the sun was above the horizon here in St. Louis.

[1] Based on an experience with a partial eclipse in the 70s.
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb

[David Harmon]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:50:16 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>
>There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
>a video of the convention.

Therefore, the best place to watch a lunar eclipse is from the moon.
If you watch a lunar eclipse from the moon, is it still called a lunar
eclipse, or something else?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <kvudnYZGYYaCjEnS...@earthlink.com>,

No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <M5DtM...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <kvudnYZGYYaCjEnS...@earthlink.com>,
>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:50:16 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
>>Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>
>>>There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>>>It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
>>>a video of the convention.
>>
>>Therefore, the best place to watch a lunar eclipse is from the moon.
>>If you watch a lunar eclipse from the moon, is it still called a lunar
>>eclipse, or something else?
>
>No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.

And it probably wouldn't look remotely as interesting as a solar eclipse
does on earth, because the Earth would be much larger than the solar
disk and would cover everything up.

--
David Goldfarb |"The number of times I have been declared
goldf...@gmail.com |dead is statistically insignificant,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |although admittedly non-zero." -- James Nicoll

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <M5DuL...@kithrup.com>,

David Goldfarb <goldf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <M5DtM...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <kvudnYZGYYaCjEnS...@earthlink.com>,
>>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:50:16 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
>>>Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>>
>>>>There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>>>>It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
>>>>a video of the convention.
>>>
>>>Therefore, the best place to watch a lunar eclipse is from the moon.
>>>If you watch a lunar eclipse from the moon, is it still called a lunar
>>>eclipse, or something else?
>>
>>No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.
>
>And it probably wouldn't look remotely as interesting as a solar eclipse
>does on earth, because the Earth would be much larger than the solar
>disk and would cover everything up.

But the edge of the earth's atmosphere would be lit up.

Rather like the upper left part of Venus's atmosphere as it began
transit, here:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120609.html

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:50 GMT in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote,

>In article <kvudnYZGYYaCjEnS...@earthlink.com>,
>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:50:16 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
>>Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>
>>>There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>>>It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
>>>a video of the convention.
>>
>>Therefore, the best place to watch a lunar eclipse is from the moon.
>>If you watch a lunar eclipse from the moon, is it still called a lunar
>>eclipse, or something else?
>
>No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.

Well, sure, unless someone comes up with something more colorful.
What is the adjective for "by the earth" ?
They could just call it a solar eclipse and let confusion reign.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <wOOdnalUD4_jqEnS...@earthlink.com>,

David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:50 GMT in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote,

> >No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.
>
> Well, sure, unless someone comes up with something more colorful.

We have a lunar eclipse. We have solar eclipse. Do we have geo eclipse?

--
May joy be yours all the days of your life! - Phina
We are but a moment's sunlight, fading in the grass. - The Youngbloods
Those who eat natural foods die of natural causes. - Kperspective

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:28:30 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Howard S Shubs
<how...@shubs.net> wrote,

>In article <wOOdnalUD4_jqEnS...@earthlink.com>,
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:50 GMT in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote,
>> >No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.
>>
>> Well, sure, unless someone comes up with something more colorful.
>
>We have a lunar eclipse. We have solar eclipse. Do we have geo eclipse?

I think that's what I'm looking for. It would be a geosolar eclipse.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> One reason I didn't do much prep is I knew images beyond anything
>>>> I could set up were easily available online, yes. So I've "sort
>>>> of" seen the transit; not live.
>
>>> By that standard, you can also see the two 19th-century transits
>>> of Venus.
>
>> Well...not in real-time while it's happening. The difference
>> between electronic mediation and purely optical mediation is
>> smaller, it seems to me.
>
> There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
> It's like the difference between attending a convention and watching
> a video of the convention.

The difference there, for me, is that I can interact with the other
people when I'm there in person, but not when I'm watching a video.

Since I can't meaningfully interact with Venus transiting the Sun
anyway, the indirect natore of a video makes much less difference.

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <howard-E936DE....@news.giganews.com>,

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <wOOdnalUD4_jqEnS...@earthlink.com>,
> David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:50 GMT in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote,
>> >No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.
>>
>> Well, sure, unless someone comes up with something more colorful.
>
>We have a lunar eclipse. We have solar eclipse. Do we have geo
>eclipse?

Fortunately, I have a source that explains it all very clearly.

- A solar eclipse happen when the shadow of the Earth falls on the
Sun.

- A total eclipse of the Moon happens when the Sun passes between the
Earth and the Moon.

- A total eclipse of the Earth happens when you put your hands in
front of your eyes.

Source: Tom Weller, _Science Made Stupid_.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote,

>> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>> There's no substitute for seeing or hearing something directly.
>>>> It's like the difference between attending a convention and
>>>> watching a video of the convention.

>>> Therefore, the best place to watch a lunar eclipse is from the
>>> moon.

Yes. It would look much more interesting from there.

On the other hand, 2014's transit of Earth from Jupiter won't look
like anything from Earth. Very sensitive space-based instruments
might be able to detect a slight dimming of Jupiter and its moons for
the duration. From Jupiter, it would look a lot like a transit of
Venus looks from Earth -- except that you could also see a transit
of Earth's moon. (Venus has no moon.) And except that it's always
cloudy on Jupiter, so you couldn't actually see anything at all.
You could see it from some of Jupiter's moons, however.

>>> If you watch a lunar eclipse from the moon, is it still called a
>>> lunar eclipse, or something else?

>> No, it would be a solar eclipse by the earth.

Right. Earth would appear as a spectacular luminous orangish ring
with lots of subtle and changing gradations of color, as you saw all
of Earth's sunsets and sunrises simultaneously. The ring would look
completely dark inside, as no cities are bright enough to be seen from
the Moon.

> Well, sure, unless someone comes up with something more colorful.
> What is the adjective for "by the earth" ?

"Terrestrial."

> They could just call it a solar eclipse and let confusion reign.

Earth's shadow, like the Moon's shadow, is always *somewhere*. In a
sense there has only ever been one solar eclipse (by the Moon) and
it's lasted billions of years. It's just that it seldom lands on
Earth. Similarly with Earth's shadow and the Moon -- or Jupiter. Of
course it's called a transit, not an eclipse, if it doesn't block all
of the sun. Unless it's called an annular eclipse instead.

The on-again off-again James Webb Space Telescope will -- if it isn't
canceled -- be located where there's a perpetual transit of Earth.
But it will be facing the other way. The idea is to situate it where
all signigicant nearby sources of unwanted heat and light -- The sun,
Moon, and Earth -- are always behind it.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> David Goldfarb <goldf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And it probably wouldn't look remotely as interesting as a solar
>> eclipse does on earth, because the Earth would be much larger than
>> the solar disk and would cover everything up.

> But the edge of the earth's atmosphere would be lit up.

Yes. There are advantages and disadvantages. Most of the sun's
chromosphere and corona, all of which are completely visible during an
eclipse by the Moon, due to the coincidence of the Moon's disk being
almost the same angular size as the sun's disk, would be blocked by
Earth's much larger disk. And the brightness of Earth's atmosphere
might keep you from seeing the sun's corona at all, and would
certainly hide the astonishing abruptness of totality. (You might
intuitively think that since the sun is a ball of hot gas, that its
brightness fades out gradually with distance from its center. It
doesn't, at least not enough to notice. It has a very sharp edge, and
the beginning and end of totality is even faster than turning a light
bulb off and on.)

Of course the number one advantage of an eclipse by the Moon is that
you can see it from Earth. Travel to the Moon is very expensive. :-)

The advantage of an eclipse by the Earth is that you get to see that
immense luminous ring of subtle and shifting colors that consists of
all the sunrises and sunsets on Earth. And it lasts much longer.
And it means you're on the *Moon*, which is a very cool place to be,
eclipse or no eclipse.

(I capitalize Earth and Moon, since they are places. I don't capitalize
sun, since it's not a place in the same sense -- nobody can be there.)

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Jun 10, 2:04 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> (Venus has no moon.)

Oh, they'd like us to think that...


Karl Johanson

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Jun 10, 2:15 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:

Yes, you'd survive several seconds longer on the moon: )

Karl Johanson

[Keith F. Lynch]

There exist spacesuits that can keep someone alive on the Moon. I'd
very much like to see any spacesuit that can keep someone alive on
the sun. Even if you were somehow immune to heat and radiation, the
gravity alone would suffice to kill you within seconds.

[Keith F. Lynch]

karl.j...@gmail.com <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> (Venus has no moon.)

> Oh, they'd like us to think that...

I think someone would have noticed by now. If it had a moon
comparable to ours, it would be easily visible to the unaided eye.

It's an interesting question just how large a moon it could have
without said moon having been noticed yet. I'd estimate it would
have to be small enough that it could fit into my apartment.

It would be fun having my own personal moon in my apartment. I could
explore it, plant flags, make footprints and profound statements,
and search for ancient alien artifacts, without all the bother of
spaceships, spacesuits, multi-day trips, worries about radiation,
or billion-dollar budgets.

The downside is that it's already kind of cramped in here, it would
get dirt on my carpets, and, since by treaty it would be the common
heritage of mankind, I suppose I'd have to let anyone in who wanted
to explore, mine, or colonize it.

I've never had my own moon. I do have my own comet, however. It's
surprisingly small, and doesn't appear to contain any ice. It
consists of some kind of powder, and it fits in a can. I bought it
at a local store. It was surprisingly inexpensive, perhaps because
it doesn't have an impressive tail.

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 4:36:08 PM UTC-7, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> karl.j...@gmail.com <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> (Venus has no moon.)
>
> > Oh, they'd like us to think that...
>
> I think someone would have noticed by now. If it had a moon
> comparable to ours, it would be easily visible to the unaided eye.

That we haven't detected it yet is evidence that it's being covered up!! (Two exclamation marks used to prove I'm right. Don't think I needed all caps for that.)

> It's an interesting question just how large a moon it could have
> without said moon having been noticed yet. I'd estimate it would
> have to be small enough that it could fit into my apartment.
>
> It would be fun having my own personal moon in my apartment. I could
> explore it, plant flags, make footprints and profound statements,
> and search for ancient alien artifacts, without all the bother of
> spaceships, spacesuits, multi-day trips, worries about radiation,
> or billion-dollar budgets.
>
> The downside is that it's already kind of cramped in here, it would
> get dirt on my carpets, and, since by treaty it would be the common
> heritage of mankind, I suppose I'd have to let anyone in who wanted
> to explore, mine, or colonize it.
>
> I've never had my own moon. I do have my own comet, however. It's
> surprisingly small, and doesn't appear to contain any ice. It
> consists of some kind of powder, and it fits in a can. I bought it
> at a local store. It was surprisingly inexpensive, perhaps because
> it doesn't have an impressive tail.

I could sell you one or two moons, in the 1 to 10 kilogram range.

Karl Johanson

[T Guy]

On Jun 10, 10:15 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> (I capitalize Earth and Moon, since they are places.  I don't capitalize
> sun, since it's not a place in the same sense -- nobody can be there.)

Well, I'd say that it's a place in every other sense.

It is also a proper noun (more so than moon. Or, for that matter,
lynch...).

[T Guy]

On Jun 12, 12:36 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> It would be fun having my own personal moon in my apartment.  I could
> explore it, plant flags, make footprints and profound statements,
> and search for ancient alien artifacts, without all the bother of
> spaceships, spacesuits, multi-day trips, worries about radiation,
> or billion-dollar budgets.
>
> The downside is that it's already kind of cramped in here, it would
> get dirt on my carpets, and, since by treaty it would be the common
> heritage of mankind, I suppose I'd have to let anyone in who wanted
> to explore, mine, or colonize it.

It might be like unto a thing of works of art in stately homes; you
only have to let people in to see it if you don't pay some sort of tax
on it (not exactly sure how that works, I must confess...).

Hmmm... if they colonise it, they'd have to pay you rent. The downside
is you might have to work out the proportion of your utilities bills
that the tenants pay. There are all sorts of issues that would arise
and I'm sorely tempted to take the view that it might well be more
trouble than it is worth.

[T Guy]

On Jun 12, 5:42 am, "karl.johan...@gmail.com"

<karl.johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 4:36:08 PM UTC-7, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> > I think someone would have noticed by now.  If it had a moon
> > comparable to ours, it would be easily visible to the unaided eye.
>
> That we haven't detected it yet is evidence that it's being covered up!! (Two exclamation marks used to prove I'm right. Don't think I needed all caps for that.)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - it is evidence of a
cover-up!

[Cryptoengineer]

Asimov once wrote a short non-fiction piece called 'The Tragedy of the
Moon', in which he suggested that if Venus had our moon instead of
Earth, it would have been naked-eye obviously orbiting around it. We'd
have developed a heliocentric model of the solar system first off,
since it would be clear that some bodies did *not* orbit around the
Earth.

I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the Moon does
for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial atmosphere,
stabilizing the axial tilt, etc.

pt

[James Nicoll]

In article <9cd31cb7-4066-4fd5...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the Moon does
>for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial atmosphere,

Niven fan, by any chance?
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[Alan Woodford]

My recollection is that The Tragedy of the Moon ended with the view
that both Earth -and- Venus having large moons would have been an
even better outcome :-)

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman!

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <jr7rgb$h9b$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <9cd31cb7-4066-4fd5...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the Moon
>>does for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial atmosphere,
>
>Niven fan, by any chance?

I think I've seen it expressed in, like, real-ish science sources like
Universe Today or Science News, but I can't find it in a quick search.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:

> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the Moon
>>> does for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial atmosphere,

>> Niven fan, by any chance?

> I think I've seen it expressed in, like, real-ish science sources
> like Universe Today or Science News, but I can't find it in a quick
> search.

I'd very much like to hear of that source, as I'm pretty sure it's
completely bogus.

The enormous impact with Earth that created the Moon certainly made
Earth a very different place. Whether that should be credited to
(or blamed on) the Moon is another question.

[Keith F. Lynch]

T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:

> <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That we haven't detected it yet is evidence that it's being covered
>> up!! (Two exclamation marks used to prove I'm right. Don't think
>> I needed all caps for that.)

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - it is evidence of
> a cover-up!

Sorry, that's not true. You should have said it with two exclamation
points so that it would be true. Making EVERY other WORD all CAPS
also WORKS.

If it is a cover-up, who is responsible? Probably The Ancient Mystic
Society of No Homers.

[Keith F. Lynch]

T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> It might be like unto a thing of works of art in stately homes; you
> only have to let people in to see it if you don't pay some sort of
> tax on it (not exactly sure how that works, I must confess...).

That must be a UK thing. In the US, anyone is free to buy any work of
art he can afford, paying no tax except the usual sales tax, and can
then show it to anybody, show it to nobody, or burn it, whatever he
chooses. Except, he can't make copies of it unless he also bought
the copyright or unless it's old enough to be in the public domain.

> Hmmm... if they colonise it, they'd have to pay you rent.

My landlord doesn't allow me to sublet the apartment, not even to
lunar colonists.

[Keith F. Lynch]

So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
Jupiter, etc.?

[cryptoengineer]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:13:31 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> > James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the
Moon
> >>> does for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial
atmosphere,


> >> Niven fan, by any chance?


> > I think I've seen it expressed in, like, real-ish science sources
> > like Universe Today or Science News, but I can't find it in a
quick
> > search.


> I'd very much like to hear of that source, as I'm pretty sure it's
> completely bogus.

A quick Wikipedia check confirms Keith.

Pt

[David Goldfarb]

In article <jr8jbe$dhj$5...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
>Jupiter, etc.?

According to <http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/capitals.htm>:
(as a subhead of "Proper names":)
>[Capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way.
>Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names
>appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are
>mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to
>Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun."

--
David Goldfarb |"In the fifties, people responded well to
goldf...@gmail.com | authoritative disembodied voices."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:39:45 PM UTC-7, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <jr8jbe$dhj$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
> >Jupiter, etc.?
>
> According to <http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/capitals.htm>:
> (as a subhead of "Proper names":)
> >[Capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way.
> >Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names
> >appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are
> >mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to
> >Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun."

Wikipedia's style guide is a bit different: "The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper nouns) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (our Sun, Earth, Moon and Solar System)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:21:37 PM UTC-7, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> > <karl.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> That we haven't detected it yet is evidence that it's being covered
> >> up!! (Two exclamation marks used to prove I'm right. Don't think
> >> I needed all caps for that.)
>
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - it is evidence of
> > a cover-up!
>
> Sorry, that's not true. You should have said it with two exclamation
> points so that it would be true. Making EVERY other WORD all CAPS
> also WORKS.
>
> If it is a cover-up, who is responsible?

Derryl I think. Ooooo, that guy.

Karl Johanson

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <almarsoft.1956...@news.giganews.com>,

Would you please give the closest URL?

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <jr8ier$dhj$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the Moon
>>>> does for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial atmosphere,
>
>>> Niven fan, by any chance?
>
>> I think I've seen it expressed in, like, real-ish science sources
>> like Universe Today or Science News, but I can't find it in a quick
>> search.
>
>I'd very much like to hear of that source, as I'm pretty sure it's
>completely bogus.
>
>The enormous impact with Earth that created the Moon certainly made
>Earth a very different place. Whether that should be credited to
>(or blamed on) the Moon is another question.

If the impact that apparently created the Moon blew away Earth's
original atmosphere, so a new one was created by new outgassing and
new comets, then indeed the Moon or proto-Moon is entirely reasonable
(insofar as ascribing "credit" to an inanimate object is a good use of
"to credit").

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Alan Woodford]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:26:35 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>> It might be like unto a thing of works of art in stately homes; you
>> only have to let people in to see it if you don't pay some sort of
>> tax on it (not exactly sure how that works, I must confess...).
>
>That must be a UK thing. In the US, anyone is free to buy any work of
>art he can afford, paying no tax except the usual sales tax, and can
>then show it to anybody, show it to nobody, or burn it, whatever he
>chooses. Except, he can't make copies of it unless he also bought
>the copyright or unless it's old enough to be in the public domain.
>

The usual deal is along the lines of owner of stately home dies, with
very few worldly goods other than the home, leaving an inheritance tax
bill that could only be met by selling the stately home.

An arrangement is then come to, where the stately home is opened to
the public, in exchange for a reduction in the inheritance tax bill.

>> Hmmm... if they colonise it, they'd have to pay you rent.
>
>My landlord doesn't allow me to sublet the apartment, not even to
>lunar colonists.

but you wouldn't be subletting the apartment....

I know, that's how lawyers get rich :-)

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>
> So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
> Jupiter, etc.?

I was under an impression that English does not have "official rules" as
such.

ObSF: Newspeak

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[T Guy]

On Jun 13, 12:28 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> T Guy <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> (I capitalize Earth and Moon, since they are places.  I don't
> >> capitalize sun, since it's not a place in the same sense -- nobody
> >> can be there.)
> > Well, I'd say that it's a place in every other sense.
> > It is also a proper noun (more so than moon.  Or, for that matter,
> > lynch...).
>
> So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
> Jupiter, etc.?

If it's a proper noun it gets capitalised.


Here are a brace of examples:

At what time should my batman lynch someone on one of Jupiter's
moons?

Tim Bateman and Keith Lynch visited Earth's only moon, the Moon,
leaving behind the soil or earth of their native planet, inspired by a
story in _Planet Stories_.

[T Guy]

On Jun 13, 12:22 pm, Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:26:35 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> >T Guy <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> >> It might be like unto a thing of works of art in stately homes; you
> >> only have to let people in to see it if you don't pay some sort of
> >> tax on it (not exactly sure how that works, I must confess...).
>
> >That must be a UK thing.  In the US, anyone is free to buy any work of
> >art he can afford, paying no tax except the usual sales tax, and can
> >then show it to anybody, show it to nobody, or burn it, whatever he
> >chooses.  Except, he can't make copies of it unless he also bought
> >the copyright or unless it's old enough to be in the public domain.
>
> The usual deal is along the lines of owner of stately home dies, with
> very few worldly goods other than the home, leaving an inheritance tax
> bill that could only be met by selling the stately home.
>
> An arrangement is then come to, where the stately home is opened to
> the public, in exchange for a reduction in the inheritance tax bill.

Yes, that sounds about right.

I was specifically thinking of a Mark Thomas TV prog the other year
where he took half-a-dozen members of the public into someone's home
to look at a painting.

Oho! Google is my new best friend -

first hit (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm) gives us:

"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972:
128). This is one of Mark Thomas’s favorite tactics. He found out that
people who inherited expensive paintings could avoid inheritance tax
by allowing the public to have access to the painting. He got the
public to ring up numerous people who had done this and request to see
the paintings. When they refused, or refused everyone he managed to
get the law changed."

This stunt is also allegedly mentioned in the Opinionopedia page, the
third hit, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thomas.

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <jr8j7b$dhj$4...@reader1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Except, he can't make copies of it unless he also bought the
>copyright or unless it's old enough to be in the public domain.

"old enough to be in the public domain" ... oh, that pushes a button,
because only a few days ago I found out about this screw in UK law.

https://joycefoundation.osu.edu/joyce-copyright/fair-use-and-permissions/about-law/currently-unpublished

"United Kingdom

"Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which they
will enter the U.K. public domain."

The damned Gresley book is FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OLD!!! England probably
didn't HAVE any copyrights when it was written. Almost certainly John
Banys wrote the damned dance choreographies, but the researcher wasn't
able to locate such a man, and his estate has been wound up.

But nobody realized that it had the earliest English-language dance
choreographies (except for translations) until 1994, *after* the 1989
cutoff, supra. So a late medieval work by an uncertain author is
copyright in the UK until A.D. 2040. So the Derbyshire Record Office
cannot send out copies except under the UK's equivalent of fair use,
only a copy of an excerpt of the book (luckily, including all the
dances and their music) with a written promise that it's for scholarly
purposes.

A further screw is that the DRO, a government [*] office, charges
pounds 2.15 per scanned image, so UKP 32.25 total, even though it was
scanned years ago and therefore the marginal cost is bloody near zero.
I suppose I might think of it as like the sale of duck-hunting permits
at a high price but using the excess to pay to protect duck habitat.
But charging a high fee for public-owned documents still feels to me
like simony, charging a fee for sacraments.

[*] How would a UKer express that -- "public office"?

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Paul Dormer]

In article <jraf2r$22a$1...@reader1.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
wrote:

>
> [*] How would a UKer express that -- "public office"?

I'm guessing it is run by Derbyshire County Council, so a council office,
or it could be a quango.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>> It might be like unto a thing of works of art in stately homes; you
>> only have to let people in to see it if you don't pay some sort of
>> tax on it (not exactly sure how that works, I must confess...).
>
> That must be a UK thing. In the US, anyone is free to buy any work of
> art he can afford, paying no tax except the usual sales tax, and can
> then show it to anybody, show it to nobody, or burn it, whatever he
> chooses. Except, he can't make copies of it unless he also bought
> the copyright or unless it's old enough to be in the public domain.

Personal property tax? Some states and/or localities tax personal
property in the same way they tax real estate, although frequently not
at the same rate.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 13, 1:50 am, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.1956135987567006...@news.giganews.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> cryptoengineer  <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:13:31 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> ><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> >> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> > James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:

> >> >> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> I think this was before the knowledge of the good things the
> >> >>> Moon does for Earth were well known - thinning the primordial
> >> >>> atmosphere,
>
> >> >> Niven fan, by any chance?
>
> >> > I think I've seen it expressed in, like, real-ish science sources
> >> > like Universe Today or Science News, but I can't find it in a
> >> > quick search.
>
> >> I'd very much like to hear of that source, as I'm pretty sure it's
> >> completely bogus.
>
> >A quick Wikipedia check confirms Keith.
>
> Would you please give the closest URL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Evolution_of_Earth.27s_atmosphere

It's a proof-by-absence, which isn't very strong. The Wikipedia
article *doesn't* mention a role for the Moon in thinning the
atmosphere, which I take as confirmation of Keith's position.

FWIW, I suspect that the Niven story (which was where I think I got
the idea) predates the modern collision theory of the Moon's
formation.

pt

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <memo.2012061...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,

Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jraf2r$22a$1...@reader1.panix.com>, tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
>wrote:
>
>>
>> [*] How would a UKer express that -- "public office"?
>
>I'm guessing it is run by Derbyshire County Council, so a council office,

It just surprises me that, so far as I know, the UK doesn't have a
general adjective for the US definition of "The office, function, or
authority of a governing individual or body. Exercise of authority in
a political unit; rule. The agency or apparatus through which a
governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. A
governing body or organization.", with the level in the hierarchy
unspecified. In my rant, it would matter not at all were it a town
office, city office, county office, Scottish office, or UK-wide
office.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Alan Woodford]

Probably a council office rather than a quango, but either is
possible.

Certainly Sandwell's archives are a council service, part of libraries
and museums.

But a lot of local councils are currently terrified of issuing
informaton, for fear of falling foul of either the Data Protection Act
or the Freedom of Information Act, which have diametrically opposed
requirements, and a huge grey area where either or both may apply.

In theory, it is now a disciplinary offence if I don't put a "security
level" on an email to my boss, asking her to return a phone call. Or
even on a post-it note, if I scrawl a message on one of those :-O

I could happily rant about it for hours, but let's just say some of it
is as clear and obviously useful as the "security theatre" at
airports.

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 13, 2:19 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <memo.20120613181851.48...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>,
>
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <jraf2r$22...@reader1.panix.com>, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)

> >wrote:
>
> >> [*] How would a UKer express that -- "public office"?
>
> >I'm guessing it is run by Derbyshire County Council, so a council office,
>
> It just surprises me that, so far as I know, the UK doesn't have a
> general adjective for the US definition of "The office, function, or
> authority of a governing individual or body.  Exercise of authority in
> a political unit; rule.  The agency or apparatus through which a
> governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.  A
> governing body or organization.", with the level in the hierarchy
> unspecified.  In my rant, it would matter not at all were it a town
> office, city office, county office, Scottish office, or UK-wide
> office.
>
> --

> Tim McDaniel, t...@panix.com

At least some of the Gresley material can be found here:
http://www.dhds.org.uk/jnl/pdf/hd3n6p02.pdf

pt

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <531bccd3-5d01-4d63...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>At least some of the Gresley material can be found here:
>http://www.dhds.org.uk/jnl/pdf/hd3n6p02.pdf

Sure, that's Nevile ... wait, that's not the Nevile I had, "Dance in
Early Tudor England: An Italian Connection?"! Thanks muchly!
[glances at it] AND it discusses fitting the steps to the music,
because that blasted Banys didn't describe any of the dance steps!
Cool beans!

There's also David Fallows, "The Gresley Dance Collection, c.1500",
_Royal Musical Association Research CHronicle, No. 29 (1996),
pp. 1-20, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25099451 . That has a
transcript, so it's great.

Unfortunately, I know there's one omission in his transcription of
music, and I wonder whether there are two more, or whether Banys
omitted them, or whether they really shouldn't be there. So I want
images of the original. Fallows only has pictures of the music and a
picture of two pages (last page of the 1-20 section and the start of
21-26, which is significant).

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[David Goldfarb]

In article <jr9tbe$uud$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

<garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>>
>> So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
>> Jupiter, etc.?
>
>I was under an impression that English does not have "official rules" as
>such.

Depends on just what you mean by "official". There aren't rules set
by a government, but there are rules set by prestigous organizations
for themselves, that others imitate. Anyone who doesn't follow them
will appear to have a poor grasp of the language.

--
David Goldfarb |"Bagels can be an enormous force for good or
goldf...@gmail.com | for evil. It is up to us to decide how we
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | will use them."
| -- Daniel M. Pinkwater

[David Loewe, Jr.]

Indeed. Cars, motorcycles, planes (which bit Senator McCaskill in the
rear end recently[1]) and boats (which bit Representative Carnahan - my
current Rep[2] - in the rear end recently[1]) are all taxed as Personal
Property here in Missouri.

[1] Taxes are, apparently, for the little people.

[2] With redistricting, he no longer lives in the district I will be a
part of come January and has decided to run[3] in the district his home
has been redistricted to.

[3] There is no requirement that a Representative live in the district
they represent. IIRC, Allen West (R-FL) does not (or did not when
elected) live in his district.
--
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,"
- Thomas B. Macaulay

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Goldfarb <goldf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk> wrote:
>> I was under an impression that English does not have "official
>> rules" as such.

As with computer standards, the great thing about English-language
standards is there are so many to choose from. :-)

> Depends on just what you mean by "official". There aren't rules set
> by a government, but there are rules set by prestigous organizations
> for themselves, that others imitate. Anyone who doesn't follow them
> will appear to have a poor grasp of the language.

Indeed. For instance I have the AP Style Guide, the Chicago Manual of
Style, and Strunk & White. Among others.

There *are* English-language rules set by the US federal government,
but they only apply to dealings with that government.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> Personal property tax? Some states and/or localities tax personal
> property in the same way they tax real estate, although frequently
> not at the same rate.

It varies between US states, but in most of them I think only real
estate and motor vehicles are taxed. Not paintings.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
> until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
> years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
> they will enter the U.K. public domain."

Interesting. Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
in the UK.

> The damned Gresley book is FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OLD!!! England
> probably didn't HAVE any copyrights when it was written.

If it's in the public domain here in the US, why don't people order
copies from the US? Does UK customs check for copyright status on
imported books?

> Almost certainly John Banys wrote the damned dance choreographies,
> but the researcher wasn't able to locate such a man, and his estate
> has been wound up.

The "rule against perpetuities." For instance under Virginia law, I
have to wind up my mother's estate within 90 years. (I wonder what
the penalty is if I don't.)

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> If the impact that apparently created the Moon blew away Earth's
> original atmosphere, so a new one was created by new outgassing
> and new comets, then indeed the Moon or proto-Moon is entirely
> reasonable (insofar as ascribing "credit" to an inanimate object
> is a good use of "to credit").

It sounds to me more like the Moon is an effect of the collision
than the cause.

There's little question but that the hypothesized collision, if it
happened, not only blew away the atmosphere and any oceans, but
also melted the whole planet. This may have resulted in increased
differentiation (as lighter stuff floated to the top) or decreased
(as everything got thoroughly stirred together). It probably
also significantly changed Earth's tilt and the length of the day.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no way of learning anything
about the pre-collision Earth, due to the extreme destructiveness
of the collision. Not until someone invents a time machine.

[Doug Wickström]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:53:44 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

><rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Personal property tax? Some states and/or localities tax personal
>> property in the same way they tax real estate, although frequently
>> not at the same rate.
>
>It varies between US states, but in most of them I think only real
>estate and motor vehicles are taxed. Not paintings.

Take a trip to the state immediately to your south, where they do
indeed tax works of art and musical instruments, among other
things.

--
Doug Wickström

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> > "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
> > until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
> > years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
> > they will enter the U.K. public domain."
>
> Interesting.  Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
> in the UK.

No, it doesn't. As is so often the case, Keith is out of date. It's
been PD in the UK since 2008. Its status varies by country, and whom
you ask, but nowhere in the world does it currently have 'perpetual'
copyright.

> > The damned Gresley book is FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OLD!!!  England
> > probably didn't HAVE any copyrights when it was written.
>
> If it's in the public domain here in the US, why don't people order
> copies from the US?  Does UK customs check for copyright status on
> imported books?

Its not a published work; you can't "order copies from the US". It's a
singular item, a hand-written notebook, of which there are no complete
copies legally available.

Private notebooks don't fall into the public domain just by being old.

Personally, I agree that it should be PD. The law was written poorly,
as is much intellectual property law.

pt

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:00�pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
>> > until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
>> > years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
>> > they will enter the U.K. public domain."
>>
>> Interesting. �Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
>> in the UK.
>
> No, it doesn't. As is so often the case, Keith is out of date. It's
> been PD in the UK since 2008. Its status varies by country, and whom
> you ask, but nowhere in the world does it currently have 'perpetual'
> copyright.

Well a bit of a misunderstanding maybe. Peter Pan has never had
perpetual copyright. However Great Ormond Street Hospital has a
perpetual right to a royalty. Before 2008 Peter Pan was protected
under copyright with was owned by GOSH which is the reason that
Moore's _Lost Girls_ didn't get published until 2008.

The stage-play of Peter Pan whilst public domain in the UK, is still
under copyright in the US until 2023. The novel is public domain in
the UK and US. In some places Spain and Mexico for example both are
still under copyright.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Personal property tax? Some states and/or localities tax personal
>> property in the same way they tax real estate, although frequently
>> not at the same rate.
>
> It varies between US states, but in most of them I think only real
> estate and motor vehicles are taxed. Not paintings.

I think there's been a decline in "general" personal property taxes over
the years. Real estate and vehicles have the advantage (for the taxing
authorities) that they're easily tracked. Real estate is in a fixed
location and most vehicles are registered. Both can have a fair market value
established in a reasonably consistent way. That's not true of most
other personal possessions.
Until it was repealed Oklahoma collected general personal property tax
in addition to specific taxes on vehicles (which was included in the
yearly registration fee) and real estate. Apartment dwellers received a
yearly bill. The default valuation was related to the cost of the apartment,
under the assumption that people living in more expensive apartments would
have more valuable stuff. It was possible to self-assess the fair market
value of your possessions, although I think the state reserved the right
to verify.
The billed amounts were small, at least for people living in the
low-rent district like I was. I think that mine was around $15/year.
My understanding is that most people simply discarded the bills and
collection efforts for such small amounts were not worthwhile.
I suspect that it was eventually realized that they were spending more on
the effort than they were actually collecting and decided to give the
whole thing up.
I'm not aware of any taxing authority in Texas that taxes general
personal property and only a few that tax vehicles.

[Tim McDaniel]

I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy from
the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute printed
copies in the US. (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US
or other countries where it would be out of copyright is a further
matter.)

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 14, 11:24 am, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> > "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
> >> > until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
> >> > years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
> >> > they will enter the U.K. public domain."
>
> >> Interesting.  Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
> >> in the UK.
>
> > No, it doesn't. As is so often the case, Keith is out of date. It's
> > been PD in the UK since 2008. Its status varies by country, and whom
> > you ask, but nowhere in the world does it currently have 'perpetual'
> > copyright.
>
> Well a bit of a misunderstanding maybe.  Peter Pan has never had
> perpetual copyright.  However Great Ormond Street Hospital has a
> perpetual right to a royalty.  Before 2008 Peter Pan was protected
> under copyright with was owned by GOSH which is the reason that
> Moore's _Lost Girls_ didn't get published until 2008.

Keith said 'Peter Pan has perpetual copyright in the UK', and that was
the assertion I claimed was out of date.

> The stage-play of Peter Pan whilst public domain in the UK, is still
> under copyright in the US until 2023.  The novel is public domain in
> the UK and US.  In some places Spain and Mexico for example both are
> still under copyright.

Yes, it's complicated. I'll note that Disney hasn't paid royalties to
GOSH since 2004.

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 14, 12:10 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy from
> the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute printed
> copies in the US.  (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US
> or other countries where it would be out of copyright is a further
> matter.)

How would this copy be legally obtained? I agree the work should be
PD, but apparently we're up against whatever the opposite of a legal
loophole is.

pt

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <9db9926a-4400-4c0e...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 14, 12:10 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>> I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy from
>> the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute printed
>> copies in the US.  (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US
>> or other countries where it would be out of copyright is a further
>> matter.)
>
>How would this copy be legally obtained?

Derbyshire Records Office for UKP many.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Jette Goldie]

On 14/06/2012 01:00, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Tim McDaniel<tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
>> until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
>> years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
>> they will enter the U.K. public domain."
>
> Interesting. Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
> in the UK.
>

Because Barrie gave the copyright to the Great Ormond Street children's
hospital.


--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT),
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:24 am, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> > "Works that were unpublished at the author's death and remained so
>> >> > until 1 August 1989 are protected by copyright in the U.K. for 50
>> >> > years from 1 January 1990, or until 31 December 2039, after which
>> >> > they will enter the U.K. public domain."
>>
>> >> Interesting.  Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual copyright
>> >> in the UK.
>>
>> > No, it doesn't. As is so often the case, Keith is out of date. It's
>> > been PD in the UK since 2008. Its status varies by country, and whom
>> > you ask, but nowhere in the world does it currently have 'perpetual'
>> > copyright.
>>
>> Well a bit of a misunderstanding maybe.  Peter Pan has never had
>> perpetual copyright.  However Great Ormond Street Hospital has a
>> perpetual right to a royalty.  Before 2008 Peter Pan was protected
>> under copyright with was owned by GOSH which is the reason that
>> Moore's _Lost Girls_ didn't get published until 2008.
>
> Keith said 'Peter Pan has perpetual copyright in the UK', and that was
> the assertion I claimed was out of date.

Well not so much out of date as never true.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy
> from the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute
> printed copies in the US.

I can't see why not.

> (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US or other countries
> where it would be out of copyright is a further matter.)

Why bother, unless you plan to travel to the UK? The US won't deport
you even if they have a warrant. Anyhow, any such mechanism would be
trivial to work around.

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> I suspect that it was eventually realized that they were spending
> more on the effort than they were actually collecting and decided
> to give the whole thing up.

I wonder why the same isn't true of charities. My late mother
continues to get several begging letters from charities every day.
The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee sent three separate
letters so far this week. I don't understand how these charities
can break even, even if they spend all donations on letters asking
for more donations rather than on the alleged purpose of the charity.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. As is so often the case, Keith is out of date.

> Well a bit of a misunderstanding maybe. Peter Pan has never had
> perpetual copyright. However Great Ormond Street Hospital has a
> perpetual right to a royalty.

In what sense is that not a copyright?

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> I don't understand how these charities can break even, even if they
> spend all donations on letters asking for more donations rather than
> on the alleged purpose of the charity.

And indeed, a petty yet satisfying way to tweak a charity you dislike is
to give them a small amount of money. They will spend all of it and more
trying to get more from you. (Give a fake address, preferably that of
someone else you dislike.)

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[karl.j...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:49:04 AM UTC-7, T Guy wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:28 am, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> > T Guy <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> > > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> > >> (I capitalize Earth and Moon, since they are places.  I don't
> > >> capitalize sun, since it's not a place in the same sense -- nobody
> > >> can be there.)
> > > Well, I'd say that it's a place in every other sense.
> > > It is also a proper noun (more so than moon.  Or, for that matter,
> > > lynch...).

> >
> > So what are the official rules on capitalizing Earth, Moon, Sun,
> > Jupiter, etc.?
>

> If it's a proper noun it gets capitalised.

What's a proper noun? A noun that's capitalized: )

Karl Johanson

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 14, 7:39 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Tim McDaniel <t...@panix.com> wrote:
> > I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy
> > from the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute
> > printed copies in the US.
>
> I can't see why not.
>
> > (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US or other countries
> > where it would be out of copyright is a further matter.)
>
> Why bother, unless you plan to travel to the UK?  The US won't deport
> you even if they have a warrant.  Anyhow, any such mechanism would be
> trivial to work around.

...says the man who claims to never break the law..

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 14, 7:56 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

> > Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No, it doesn't.  As is so often the case, Keith is out of date.
> > Well a bit of a misunderstanding maybe.  Peter Pan has never had
> > perpetual copyright.  However Great Ormond Street Hospital has a
> > perpetual right to a royalty.
>
> In what sense is that not a copyright?

[Keith sitcks his usenet fingers in his ears and goes 'lalalal'
whenever I post, but...]

It's not, in most senses fo the word.

Copyrights give many other rights, such as control. GOSH can't stop
anyone from performing Peter Pan & Wendy, no stop anyone from
reprinting it. All they can do is claim - if its done in Britain -
that they are owed a royalty.

That's not a copyright,

pt


pt

[Cryptoengineer]

On Jun 14, 3:08 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <9db9926a-4400-4c0e-8b03-5ab26dbb6...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Cryptoengineer  <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 12:10 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> >> I *have* wondered whether it would be legal for me to get a copy from
> >> the UK, and since it is not in copyright in the US, distribute printed
> >> copies in the US.  (A mechanism to allow only Web access from the US
> >> or other countries where it would be out of copyright is a further
> >> matter.)
>
> >How would this copy be legally obtained?
>
> Derbyshire Records Office for UKP many.
>
> --

> Tim McDaniel, t...@panix.com

Apparently, they only supply small portions of the work, for scholarly
research, under 'fair use'.

Copying the whole work, even from reassembled fragments, is probably
illegal.

Of course, it shouldn't be in this case.

pt

[Paul Dormer]

In article <2641798b-7181-4b39...@googlegroups.com>,

karl.j...@gmail.com () wrote:

>
>
> What's a proper noun? A noun that's capitalized: )

The Germans have the right Idea. Capitalise every Noun.

[Paul Dormer]

In article <jrdhom$uov$1...@dont-email.me>, jgold...@btinternet.com (Jette

Goldie) wrote:

>
> > Interesting. Also, I recall that Peter Pan has perpetual
> > copyright
> > in the UK.
> >
>
> Because Barrie gave the copyright to the Great Ormond Street
> children's hospital.

Well, as others have pointed out, not quite as simple as that.

I recall a talk on a radio programme many years ago about copyright and
music in Europe, in the days before the matter was harmonised across the
EU. France, they claimed, was a real oddity. It was fifty years after
death in most cases, but could be extended if you died defending the
fatherland. I can't remember how much, but they cited the case of
Alberic Magnard who died when his house was burnt down by the Germans in
1914.

And in collaborative works, it was based on the longest lived. So
although Debussy died in 1918, his librettist on Pelleas et Melisande
died much later. (Can't find the name of the librettist on Wikipedia,
but I see Maeterlinck who wrote the original play died in 1949, but he
was Belgian, so I'm not sure how that would have all worked out.)

And when Ravel's works were about to go out of copyright in 1987, the
French government just decided to extend it.

[Paul Dormer]

In article
<de8226f6-8833-45aa...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

pete...@gmail.com (Cryptoengineer) wrote:

>
> Copyrights give many other rights, such as control. GOSH can't stop
> anyone from performing Peter Pan & Wendy, no stop anyone from
> reprinting it. All they can do is claim - if its done in Britain -
> that they are owed a royalty.

There's a famous story about when Stravinsky was composing Petrushka. To
give it a Russian atmosphere, he quoted a number of Russian folk songs
and one day heard someone playing a barrel organ outside his office
window. He foolishly assumed that what was playing was another folk song
and quoted that. Unfortunately for Stravinsky, the person who had
written the song (something about a man with a wooden leg) heard
Petrushka and after that got a royalty every time it was performed.

Stravinsky had problems financially with copyrights when he fled Russia
after the revolution, and made alterations to his most popular scores
just so he could get money on the copyright for the new version. Which
maybe why, when CBS commissioned him to write a TV opera - The Flood - in
1962, and they gave him $25,000, he said his commissioning rate was
$1,000 a minute, and the piece is exactly 25 minutes long. Unfortunately,
CBS had already arranged an hour-long spot for the premiere and had to
pad it out a bit.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

What is a noun? The German language grammar theories might have some
noun related ideas, but I am not sure we can carry them over to the
English language structure and word class definitions.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 19:22:34 UTC+1, Alan Woodford wrote:

> Probably a council office rather than a quango, but either is
> possible.
>
> Certainly Sandwell's archives are a council service, part of libraries
> and museums.
>
> But a lot of local councils are currently terrified of issuing
> informaton, for fear of falling foul of either the Data Protection Act
> or the Freedom of Information Act, which have diametrically opposed
> requirements, and a huge grey area where either or both may apply.

Yes, I noticed this the other year. If someone asks me a question I'd rather not answer, I do occasionally reply that I am unable to answer the question under the terms of the data Protection Act.

> In theory, it is now a disciplinary offence if I don't put a "security
> level" on an email to my boss, asking her to return a phone call. Or
> even on a post-it note, if I scrawl a message on one of those :-O

Oh, the opportunities for Teh Hilarity I can see here!

Sadly, we do not have this absurd rule at the local Council which employs my good self.

> I could happily rant about it for hours, but let's just say some of it
> is as clear and obviously useful as the "security theatre" at
> airports.

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:

> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> I suspect that it was eventually realized that they were spending
>> more on the effort than they were actually collecting and decided
>> to give the whole thing up.
>
> I wonder why the same isn't true of charities. My late mother
> continues to get several begging letters from charities every day.
> The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee sent three separate
> letters so far this week. I don't understand how these charities
> can break even, even if they spend all donations on letters asking
> for more donations rather than on the alleged purpose of the charity.

Some charities contract third parties to do direct mail and telephone
fundraising. This can end up being a bad deal for the charity if they
don't write the contract properly since all of the funds raised can be
eaten up by expenses.
Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) shows the USC has having a
fundraising efficiency of $0.11 (it costs them on average $0.11 to raise
$1 in funds.) That's not too bad...overall they show 86.5% of their
spending on program expenses compared to 4.1% on administrative and 9.2%
on fundraising.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:18:06, Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:

>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> I don't understand how these charities can break even, even if they
>> spend all donations on letters asking for more donations rather than
>> on the alleged purpose of the charity.
>
>And indeed, a petty yet satisfying way to tweak a charity you dislike is
>to give them a small amount of money. They will spend all of it and more
>trying to get more from you. (Give a fake address, preferably that of
>someone else you dislike.)

I didn't do this to a charity, but I did send the John Kerry
Presidential Campaign a check that was less than the postage on the SASE
they sent out to me. They cashed it.
--
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
- General James N. Mattis

[Alan Woodford]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:59:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 13 June 2012 19:22:34 UTC+1, Alan Woodford wrote:
>
>> Probably a council office rather than a quango, but either is
>> possible.
>>
>> Certainly Sandwell's archives are a council service, part of libraries
>> and museums.
>>
>> But a lot of local councils are currently terrified of issuing
>> informaton, for fear of falling foul of either the Data Protection Act
>> or the Freedom of Information Act, which have diametrically opposed
>> requirements, and a huge grey area where either or both may apply.
>
>Yes, I noticed this the other year. If someone asks me a question I'd rather not answer, I do occasionally reply that I am unable to answer the question under the terms of the data Protection Act.
>
>> In theory, it is now a disciplinary offence if I don't put a "security
>> level" on an email to my boss, asking her to return a phone call. Or
>> even on a post-it note, if I scrawl a message on one of those :-O
>
>Oh, the opportunities for Teh Hilarity I can see here!

Fortunately, I've got a decent boss :-)

>
>Sadly, we do not have this absurd rule at the local Council which employs my good self.
>

So your lot -don't- send papers to the wrong side in a child
protection case, which is what started the fun for us?

Alan Woodford

The Greying Lensman!