Far Left Group Opposes a Return to the Moon
Mark R. Whittington
http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
--
Mark R. Whittington
http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com
Co-author of Nocturne, a Novel of Suspense
http://www.xlibris.com/nocturne.html
Author of Children of Apollo
http://www.xlibris.com/childrenofapollo.html
TKalbfus
This is an "Apples and Oranges" argument. "Why go to the Moon when we can
educate our children." Well why not go to the Moon? Don't you want your
children to learn about the Moon in science class? Or do you want your children
to ask awkward questions in class such as, why we haven't been back to the Moon
since 1973? Is the answer going to be, so you can be properly educated?
Therefore we must prevent these children from finding out about the Moon lest
they become ignorant.
Tom
Kelly McDonald
There is also of course the whole inspirational spin-off's that come
from an ambitious space program. How many people who were kids and
teens in the 1960's became interested in science and egineering as a
result of the space race. I think that we can attribute an important
part of the PC revolution in the 70's at NASA's feet, from "inventing
the computer", but from the large number of university graduates
entering the market, as a result of thier interests sparked by the
space program
Kelly McDonald
Hop David
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
> For your outrage:
>
> http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
>
Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
sustainable return to space.
Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
and computers.
I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
and encourage good, healthy capitalism.
--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Mark R. Whittington
"Kelly McDonald" <kellymcdonald@-no-spam-sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4302vv06gf06egcaa...@4ax.com...
That is an interesting point, which is why the much maligned "inspire the
youth" arguement is not all that frivolous.
I think that what is proposed in the ad is almost unimaginable cruelty. It
says that we need to deny "the children" the opportunity to explore the
universe and take advantage of the opportunities it offers, In return we are
to subject them to abuse such as only bureaucratic institutions which are
said to be for their benefit, but actually wind up hurting them past repair.
That's what we did in the seventies. An entire generation was denied a
brillient age of exploration such as our race had never seen before.
Never again.
Dr. O
"Hop David" <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote in message
news:3FF10DF4...@tabletoptelephone.com...
>
>
> Mark R. Whittington wrote:
> > For your outrage:
> >
> > http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
> >
>
> Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>
> If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
> sustainable return to space.
>
> Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
> can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
> and computers.
>
I agree 100% and I've proclaimed this many times in this NG. The only
question is: how to do this? I originally envisioned NASA developing a SSTO
RLV which could be 'leased' to the private sector for tourism or other (yet
unknown) uses. But the X-33 program has been canceled (despite the fact that
the main culprit for doing so, the carbon fiber fuel tank was recently
tested with success) so that only leaves ELV's in the short run. Unless NASA
restarts the X-33 program or something similar, we'll have to make do with
safer ELV's. Hybrids are, IMHO, the best choice for this, along with a
capsule type reentry vehicle. They're simple, and safe (although not
necessarily economically viable because they can only carry a limited number
of passengers).
Besides tourism, I haven't yet heard a convincing case for private
investment in space activity. Space 'mining', often touted in the early 70's
and 80's has AFAIK disappeared from the radar screen entirely.
Christopher
<hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mark R. Whittington wrote:
>> For your outrage:
>>
>> http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
>>
>
>Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>
>If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
>sustainable return to space.
>
>Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
>can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
>and computers.
Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
>above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
>and encourage good, healthy capitalism.
>
>
>--
>Hop David
>http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
>
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Matti Anttila
> Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
When money runs, it is not wasted.
Matti Anttila
--
http://antti.la/
ma...@antti.la
Remy Villeneuve
Problem is, in 30+ years since the last landing, no business has yet
to go back on the moon any time soon. I'd say most venture capital
firms shudder when business plans involving the moon, because NASA had
to pour billions on it in the '60s, so they figure that it would be
the same kind of money pit.
For the same reason that no business has established itself on
Antartica yet, there won't be business on the moon anytime soon. If
you set up permanent scientific presence on the Moon, and implement a
solar system-wide space flight cost reduction plan, we might get
launch costs low enough to enable tourism on the Moon, just like in
Antartica. After those first fields are in place, science and tourism,
others would follow.
First, in-situ chemical production, then spacecraft integration and
assembly, then in-situ material processing and associated industries.
Once the number of workers hits a certain level, you begin to have
services for them, like hotels for visiting contractors, supervisors,
temporary workers, scientifics, and even families and tourists, which
attracts even more capital.
Had it not been for the gold rush, California would not be what it is
today. Granted, there's the high-tech industry, but had it not been
for the availability of capitals, I figure that Silicon Valley would
have been located in Boston instead around MIT...
Same goes for most cities in the world. If they are there, it's
because at some point in the past, it was the center of commerce and
trade for a specific region. Sometimes it was for the neighboring
towns and counties, sometimes it was for the whole world. Hong-Kong
and New York are good examples of such role.
We cannot force interest to shift to the Moon. We can only, by our
combined actions, give a nudge to a ball that hopefully will pick up
speed in the right direction.
Paul F. Dietz
> That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
> not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
> leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
> to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
> which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
> When money runs, it is not wasted.
<sarcasm>
Ah. So if an activity does not consume physical currency, the money
isn't wasted?
I propose the government give me a billion dollars to do with as I see
fit. In return, I promise I will spend every last dollar here on
Earth, and not launch any of the currency into space, or hire
contractors from Zeta Reticuli.
Think of all the jobs this would create! I'd be such a public benefactor.
They should build statues of me.
</sarcasm>
In case you didn't notice, you are repeating a particularly stupid bit
of economic illiteracy. Currency is a placeholder that represents
wealth. Real wealth are the things that you can obtain by exchange
with the currency, such as labor, capital, raw materials, and goods
embodying those. Space programs most certainly do consume this
real wealth (proponents will argue that they create more wealth than
is consumed, but this is not relevant to your argument.)
Paul
Alex Terrell
Are these the same left wing groups who oppose
- vouchers because they give too much power to parents?
- selective education as its unfair on dumb kids?
I suppose they also think that we shouldn't have access to clean
energy in 50 years time - oh - that's not their problem.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Matti Anttila" <ma...@antti.la> wrote in message
news:bsrn2g$jle$1...@epityr.hut.fi...
Right. I'm going to go downtown and break as many windows in as many
government windows as I can.
You see, it won't be a waste. They'll have to replace them which means
they'll spend money. That's a good thing right?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>
> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
Why not?
John Savard
<ma...@antti.la> wrote, in part:
>That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
>not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
>leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
>to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
>which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
>When money runs, it is not wasted.
Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Zubrin have made this argument, but it is
not valid.
For *two* reasons.
1) If somebody _did_ take a pile of hundred-dollar bills, and allow
the government to count them first, and then launch them into the Sun
to burn up (to use Dr. Zubrin's example), the only thing that would be
wasted is paper.
Remember the old joke...
Three men see an attractive blonde. The first one pulls out a $5 bill
and lights his cigar with it to impress her. The second one pulls out
a $100 bill and lights his cigar with it to impress her. The third one
pulls out his checkbook, writes a check for one million dollars, and
lights his check with it.
The blonde leaves with the third man.
The question:
Did she leave with the third man because she was, falsely, impressed
that he could afford to waste a larger sum of money in lighting his
cigar...
or did she know what was happening, and left with the third man
because he had more sense than the others, refusing to waste money,
and was creative with a sense of humor?
Fundamentally, paper money is simply a transferable cheque written by
the government that has value because it can be redeemed for gold.
Today, this redeemability is limited, only foreign governments can do
it, but the fundamental principle still applies.
2) When money is spent to purchase goods and services, the people who
receive that money do still have that money to spend. Some of that
money will, of course, have been spent on materials, equipment, and
supplies required to produce the purchased goods and services. But it
will all find its way to someone's pocket in the end.
Does that mean that it is impossible to waste money, then?
No. If you spend money, that money is no longer in your pocket. So, if
you make the mistake of purchasing goods and services that you find do
not meet your needs or wants, you personally are poorer.
The government can spend money on things like education or health care
for everyone, while individuals will spend their money after taxes on
themselves. So, if the government spends money on something that isn't
worthwhile, it means higher taxes or less government services.
And, even more to the point, what happens when money is spent
purchasing something? Did that which is purchased just come out of
thin air, since the money didn't get used up in creating it?
No. When money changes hands in one direction, and goods and services
change hands in the opposide direction in return, those goods and
services took materials and effort to produce.
The people who are busy building a Moon rocket because they are paid
to build a Moon rocket... are not busy educating or feeding our
children, because they are not, instead, being paid to educate or feed
our children.
It may well be a wise or right choice to devote some of the nation's
time and effort to the exploration of space, instead of yet another
social-welfare project.
But to attempt to make the argument that, because of the conservation
of green pieces of paper, that *no choice is actually being made*, and
building rockets does not consume time, effort, and resources (which
can be measured in terms of dollars on the balance sheet) is
dishonest, and therefore serves only to undermine the cause of space
advocacy.
Unless, of course, the argument is just about English usage, and the
objection is to the use of the phrase "a waste of money" for
activities regarded as a waste of man-hours, energy, and materials.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
ed kyle
> > For your outrage:
> >
> > http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
> >
>
> Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>
> If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
> sustainable return to space.
>
> Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
> can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
> and computers.
>
Nothing will happen unless there is profit to be made - and
it is not clear how profit can result from traveling to the
Moon. If it were, it should have happened by now.
There were profit-seeking fur traders in the American West
even before Lewis and Clark. A second, entirely privately-funded
expedition swiftly headed to the Pacific Northwest soon after
Lewis and Clark returned. These fellows found a shorter route
across the continent, established trading relations with
numerous, previously unknown, tribes, built trading sites, etc.
They were way out in front of the U.S. Government.
(They probably would have succeeded had it not been for some
sneaky Canaidans in their midst who sold the company's
Colombia River interests to a competing Canadian trading
company when they learned about the War of 1812.)
It has been nearly 35 years since the U.S. Government put
people on the Moon. The only reason I can imagine that no
commercial interests have followed - not even by the less
expensive robotic route - is because there is no money to
be made on what is, after all, a radiation-blasted wasteland
of dust and rocks in endless vacuum.
- Ed Kyle
TKalbfus
>
>If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
>sustainable return to space.
>
Well why not? Each Shuttle mission is basically a flags and footprints mission,
yet we sustained it for 22 years. Each Shuttle mission is in my opinion a waste
of money, yet they keep on launching them. Its easy to imagine Moon missions
being sustained over 22 years, and I think that would be more interesting than
ongoing shuttle missions.
>Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
>can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
>and computers.
>
So you want to have a Moon Prize? That should be easy to arrange. Just place a
couple billion dollars on the surface of the Moon and watch the private
companies scramble to go get it. NASA could easily build a Moon probe that
could deliver it there.
>I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
>above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
>and encourage good, healthy capitalism.
The liberals are the ones that look for excuses not to go. Those excuses could
be:
Why don't we educate our children?
Or
Oh gee, isn't it a nice day?
Or
Isn't this terrible, Big government spending? Its going to raise your taxes
more than we want to raise your taxes for social spending.
Tom
TKalbfus
>not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
>leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
>to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
>which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
>When money runs, it is not wasted.
>
>
>Matti Anttila
Why not? If you leave enough money on the Moon, investors will raise enough
money to launch a mission to go fetch it, so long as they believe than the
money retrieved will be greater than the money spent and it gives them
sufficient return on their investements.
If they do not make the investment, the money remains on the Moon, but the only
cost to the government is delivering it there. The money itself costs little to
produce, and it does not contribute to inflation so long as it remains on the
Moon. The Fed can loan that money to the government at 0% interest for as long
as the money remains out of reach, and then charge something once its
retreived. So the government only loses money if results are achieved,
otherwise its just the cost of delivery to the Moon.
Tom
Tom
Sander Vesik
But the same applies to basicly *ANY* use you put the money. So one
might aswell choose one from which there are some slightly more real
results than footprints and flags on moon. And again, unsuprisingly
enough, that is very easy to do.
>
> Matti Anttila
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
TKalbfus
>of economic illiteracy. Currency is a placeholder that represents
>wealth. Real wealth are the things that you can obtain by exchange
>with the currency, such as labor, capital, raw materials, and goods
>embodying those. Space programs most certainly do consume this
>real wealth (proponents will argue that they create more wealth than
>is consumed, but this is not relevant to your argument.)
>
> Paul
Alternately putting money on the Moon doesn't consume that much real wealth, it
can be delivered in a small package if large enough dem=nominations are used.
You hire the people to print the money and the people to build and launch the
small lander. We have rockets right now that can deliver packages to the Moon.
Let the private companies develop their own launch vehicles to retrieve it.
Alternately the US government could simply put up a reward for the return of
each lunar rover used in the Apollo missions, they are still there sitting on
the Moon's surface.
Tom
TKalbfus
>the government to count them first, and then launch them into the Sun
>to burn up (to use Dr. Zubrin's example), the only thing that would be
>wasted is paper.
The only problem is that if its sent to the Sun, it cannot be retrieved and
spent. How about sending it to the Moon? Lets start out conservative and put 1
billion dollars on the Moon, wait a year and see what happens. It nothing
happens put another billion dollars on the Moon. It probably costs as much to
launch as the money that is being sent. We just pile more and more money on the
Moon and eventually some one will send out a mission to retrieve it, or they
can wait to see if NASA puts more money on the Moon so there will be more money
to collect, but there is a risk in doing so as someone else may launch a
mission to retrieve the money instead of you.
Tom
TKalbfus
>to go back on the moon any time soon. I'd say most venture capital
>firms shudder when business plans involving the moon, because NASA had
>to pour billions on it in the '60s, so they figure that it would be
>the same kind of money pit.
>
Yes, that's right. The Moon has plenty of pits to throw money into, but don't
you think if there was enough money in some of those pits, someone would want
to scoop it up and bring it back to Earth?
Tom
Chris Hall
>There were profit-seeking fur traders in the American West
>even before Lewis and Clark. A second, entirely privately-funded
>expedition swiftly headed to the Pacific Northwest soon after Lewis and
>Clark returned. These fellows found a shorter route across the
>continent, established trading relations with numerous, previously
>unknown, tribes, built trading sites, etc. They were way out in front
>of the U.S. Government.
>(They probably would have succeeded had it not been for some sneaky
>Canaidans in their midst who sold the company's Colombia River interests
>to a competing Canadian trading
>company when they learned about the War of 1812.)
Are you under the impression that Lewis and Clark were the first to the
Pacific Northwest? If so, Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you :-) It
was his reading of the journal from the first explorer which inspired the
Lewis and Clark expedition. As a hint, check out the name of a certain
large northward flowing river that flows into the Arctic Ocean (an ocean
also visited by this explorer). And nobody remembers Alcock and Brown's
1919 flight across the Atlantic either!
--
Chris M. Hall, Associate Research Scientist
Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan
Specialization is for insects
Michael Walsh
Hop David wrote:
> Mark R. Whittington wrote:
> > For your outrage:
> >
> > http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
> >
>
> Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>
> If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
> sustainable return to space.
>
> Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
> can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
> and computers.
Airplanes got off to a good free market start by the Wright Brothers
who beat out a government financed effort by Langley. The development
of the airplane has been an intertwined government and private thing
ever since. War has had a greater effect on the development of the
airplane than commerce, at least in the early decades.
Computers were successfully developed as a government project.
Micro-computers (PCs) were mainly a free market development at
least in their proliferation through the entire world. Main Frame
computers were a combination of free market and government
development.
>
>
> I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
> above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
> and encourage good, healthy capitalism.
>
> --
> Hop David
> http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Encourage the private sector to do what? The private sector, at least
most of it, wants to get its money back and doesn't usually want to wait
to long to get it.
My belief is that it is time for the government to get its act together
and provide the background exploration and technology development
that can show a path to profit that the private sector will be willing
to
follow. Initially it is most likely to be selling things to the
government
for their projects.
And: Back to the Moon!
In this respect Zubrin is wrong.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Christopher wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:36 -0700, Hop David
> <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark R. Whittington wrote:
> >> For your outrage:
> >>
> >> http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
> >>
> >
> >Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
> >
> >If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
> >sustainable return to space.
> >
> >Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
> >can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
> >and computers.
>
> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
Sure, why not?
Mike Walsh
ed kyle
> Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote in message news:<3FF10DF4...@tabletoptelephone.com>...
> > Mark R. Whittington wrote:
> > > For your outrage:
> > >
> > > http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
> > >
> >
> > Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
> > can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
> > and computers.
> >
> It has been nearly 35 years since the U.S. Government put
> people on the Moon. The only reason I can imagine that no
> commercial interests have followed - not even by the less
> expensive robotic route - is because there is no money to
> be made on what is, after all, a radiation-blasted wasteland
> of dust and rocks in endless vacuum.
>
Following up with another thought: Except for the (mostly
geosynchronous) communication satellite market and arguably for
a few commericial "spy" imaging satellites (arguably because
governments are likely their biggest customer), there has been
little commercial exploitation beyond the earth's atmosphere.
Space is still mostly a government effort that is mosly about
national prestige. The space launch vehicles that exist today
were all developed to serve governments.
Why else would the U.S. have recently developed two brand
new launch systems when one alone could clearly handle the
manifest? Why is Russia developing the new Angara launcher
when it already has the infrastructure in place to launch
Ukrainian-built Zenit? Why else would Japan and India have
their own launcher programs, in a world awash with launch
overcapacity, and why would Brazil and North Korea try to
develop launchers?Why does Alaska have a new, completely
redundant (and now unused) space launch pad? Why does China
have three space launch centers when it only orbits 5-7
missions per year? And why on earth does a country like
China feel compelled to devote resources toward development
of what will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle?
Think about it. National prestige is really the only force
that could possibly drive humans back to the Moon during our
lifetimes. Prestige may or may not be enough to propel the
U.S. again, but it is probably enough for China.
- Ed Kyle
Kaido Kert
> Besides tourism, I haven't yet heard a convincing case for private
> investment in space activity.
Some twisted branch of entertainment industry ? If and when space
tourism picks up, im almost certain that entertainment industry will
jump to grab a piece if not a significant chunk of the pie.
With some creative thinking, with involvement of entertainment
industry, it would be also possible to push ahead of tourism
developments.
In short, get John Woo to direct your moon landing and positive
cashflow sources become obvious.
-kert
johnhare
> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>
To expand on the one liners others have used to answer this.
Do you feel that the Micro$oft that most of us now use is
worse than the computer availability to the public in the 70s?
I'm not defending MS, or claiming that there are no better
suppliers for their product, just asking if MS is worse than
what was available 3 decades ago.
Do you feel that a Delta Airlines monopoly would be worse
than what we have now if seats were $2,000.00 to LEO and
$10,000.00 to the moon?
Christopher
<john...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>
>> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>>
>To expand on the one liners others have used to answer this.
>
>Do you feel that the Micro$oft that most of us now use is
>worse than the computer availability to the public in the 70s?
>I'm not defending MS, or claiming that there are no better
>suppliers for their product, just asking if MS is worse than
>what was available 3 decades ago.
Yes, and
>Do you feel that a Delta Airlines monopoly would be worse
>than what we have now if seats were $2,000.00 to LEO and
>$10,000.00 to the moon?
Yes.
Christopher
Gate$ has no right to screw up the moon.
Christopher
Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of software?
Jim Davis
> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> software?
Are you quite certain that you never have?
Jim Davis
John Savard
part:
>The only problem is that if its sent to the Sun, it cannot be retrieved and
>spent.
No, that is not a *problem*, that is the safety feature. That way,
only paper is wasted, because then the money burned up in the Sun can
be replaced safely.
If the money is put on the Moon, then if someone retrieves it, it can
be redeemed for gold in Fort Knox, so replacement money cannot be
printed; the money remains tied up.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Kaido Kert
news:HFlIb.155713$%h4.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm not defending MS, or claiming that there are no better
> suppliers for their product
Plus, if not for Microsoft, the better alternatives we currently can choose
from wouldnt very likely be available either.
-kert
Hop David
Kaido Kert wrote:
> "Dr. O" <dr.o@xxxxx> wrote in message news:<3ff137ce$0$148$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>
>>Besides tourism, I haven't yet heard a convincing case for private
>>investment in space activity.
>
>
> Some twisted branch of entertainment industry ?
I'd think you could make a space based show that was as interesting as
those guys that make custom motorcycles.
Firsts (i.e. first man on an asteroid) might be marketable. I hope media
tycoons like Murdoch or Turner would be interested in stuff like that.
Maybe Lucas or Spielberg would rent sets. They'd be pleased to invest in
space efforts, I'd think.
Hop David
Christopher wrote:
> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
Sure. Right next to the Apple flag and maybe the penguin.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ff20e1...@news.ecn.ab.ca...
I think you might find it a bit hard to redeem it for gold, considering
we're not on the gold standard.
However, the point is, if you put it on the Moon, it becomes an incentive.
Sooner or later SOMEONE will find it worthwhile to go there and get it.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> >>
> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
> >
> >Sure, why not?
>
> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of software?
The question is a non-sequitor.
Joann Evans
I would agree, but my concern is that computer graphics technology
will become realistic and cheaper, faster than physical access to space
will....
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:51:03 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >>
> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
> >
> >Why not?
> >
> Gate$ has no right to screw up the moon.
Who does?
And who are you to determine who does?
johnhare
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:58:15 GMT, "johnhare"
> <john...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >
> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
> >>
> >To expand on the one liners others have used to answer this.
> >
> >Do you feel that the Micro$oft that most of us now use is
> >worse than the computer availability to the public in the 70s?
> >I'm not defending MS, or claiming that there are no better
> >suppliers for their product, just asking if MS is worse than
> >what was available 3 decades ago.
>
> Yes, and
>
class that I failed had an 8k Wang and a 16k Wang, for 30
students.
> >Do you feel that a Delta Airlines monopoly would be worse
> >than what we have now if seats were $2,000.00 to LEO and
> >$10,000.00 to the moon?
>
> Yes.
>
Fair enough. Our feelings on this matter are quite different. Or
possibly I phrased it wrong in meaning Delta Airlines dominance
as opposed to legal monopoly. Either way, I feel that zero
access is inferior to restricted access.
Hop David
Matti Anttila wrote:
> Hop David <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>
>
> That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
> not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
> leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
> to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
> which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
> When money runs, it is not wasted.
>
>
> Matti Anttila
The "Broken Window Fallacy"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96418,00.html
Scott Lowther
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
> > Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>
> Sure. Right next to the Apple flag and maybe the penguin.
And the Playboy Bunny. Which do you think will make more money from a
low-gravity, bouncy environment?
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
G EddieA95
>>than what we have now if seats were $2,000.00 to LEO and
>>$10,000.00 to the moon?
>
>Yes
Would you feel the same if the monopoly were held by British Aerospace?
G EddieA95
>
>Who does?
>
>And who are you to determine who does?
What constitutes screwing it up, since it has no ecosphere to care about, and
we *probably* couldn't change its appearance as seen from the ground, even if
we wanted to?
Michael Walsh
Christopher wrote:
What does that have to do with putting the Microsoft flag on the Moon?
Mike Walsh
ed kyle
> In <88d21cfd.03123...@posting.google.com>, on 12/30/03
> at 07:09 AM, edky...@hotmail.com (ed kyle) said:
>
> >There were profit-seeking fur traders in the American West
> >even before Lewis and Clark. A second, entirely privately-funded
> >expedition swiftly headed to the Pacific Northwest soon after Lewis and
> >Clark returned. These fellows found a shorter route across the
> >continent, established trading relations with numerous, previously
> >unknown, tribes, built trading sites, etc. They were way out in front
> >of the U.S. Government.
>
> Pacific Northwest?
Not at all. Alexander Mackenzie was the first European
known to go overland across the continent - twice across
Canada. He went on behalf of the North West Company, one
of those profit-seeking fur trader outfits I mentioned -
the folks who actually did much of the exploring and
development on the frontier. Robert Gray of the U.S. traded
furs and discovered the Columbia River in the late 1700s.
Lewis and Clark were the first to go overland to the Columbia
River basin through the new Louisiana Purchase territory in
1804-06. John Jacob Astor's Pacific Fur Company performed
the second and third U.S. overland expeditions (1811-13),
discovering South Pass through the Continental Divide in
the process - the eventual route of the Oregon Trail. It
was the Canadian-born leaders of that company's Columbia
River outposts that sold out to Canada's North West Company
in 1813 (without Astor's consent, but then he was months
away in New York City and the ocean routes of communication
were pretty much occupied by the British Navy at the time)
when they received word that the U.S. and Britain were again
at war.
The point is that commercial interests, not government
funded expeditions, did most of the exploration.
- Ed Kyle
Christopher
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff1f650...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:51:03 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >>
>> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>> >
>> >Why not?
>> >
>> Gate$ has no right to screw up the moon.
>
>Who does?
Someone who isn't like gates or his ilk.
>And who are you to determine who does?
I'm God. ;-p
Christopher
>>> Gate$ has no right to screw up the moon.
>>
>>Who does?
>>
>>And who are you to determine who does?
>
>What constitutes screwing it up,
Industry always screws up a pristine landscape.
> since it has no ecosphere to care about, and
>we *probably* couldn't change its appearance as seen from the ground, even if
>we wanted to?
Christopher
Christopher
<mp1w...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
Gate$ is rich enough, and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
Christopher
British Aerospace no longer exists. :-p
Christopher
Bull, Apple and Linux would have more of a presence in the market
place and innovation and development would be more in existance.
Christopher
<hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>Christopher wrote:
>
>> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>
>Sure. Right next to the Apple flag and maybe the penguin.
Penguin?
Matti Anttila
> ...
> Penguin?
The Linux Penguin:
http://www.linux.org/info/logos.html
BR,
Matti Anttila
Kaido Kert
> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> >> software?
> >
> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
>
> Yes.
That is very obviously just pure ignorance, unless you have lived deep in a
cave your entire life.
-kert
John Savard
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote, in part:
>I think you might find it a bit hard to redeem it for gold, considering
>we're not on the gold standard.
I personally would. However, if someone finds the money, they can
spend it on imported goods from foreign countries. The people
receiving the money would then take it to their banks to get their own
country's currency. The banks would then take the money to their
government to change it for their own currency. If that country sells
more to the U.S. than it buys from the U.S., it would then send the
money to the U.S. to get either monetary gold or Special Drawing
Rights.
Of course one could put the money on the moon to serve as a kind of
X-Prize, but then the money *is being spent*. If it is burnt up, it is
not spent; since it is guaranteed not to be redeemed, the U.S.
government can just print new money to replace it without losing
anything, except the cost of paper and ink.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Christopher
Bull.
Christopher
<ma...@antti.la> wrote:
>Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Penguin?
>
>The Linux Penguin:
>http://www.linux.org/info/logos.html
Ahh, yes, of course.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"Hop David" <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote in message
news:3FF21AB9...@tabletoptelephone.com...
It is still popular when used in relation to military spending though.
Aozotorp
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:22:42 +0200 (EET), Matti Anttila
><ma...@antti.la> wrote:
>
>>Christopher <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Penguin?
>>
>>The Linux Penguin:
>>http://www.linux.org/info/logos.html
>
>Ahh, yes, of course.
>
>
NO! The Penguins man ... the Penguins
Aozotorp
>And the Playboy Bunny. Which do you think will make more money from a
>low-gravity, bouncy environment?
>
Silicon in space????
Aozotorp
>>1) If somebody _did_ take a pile of hundred-dollar bills, and allow
>>the government to count them first, and then launch them into the Sun
>>to burn up (to use Dr. Zubrin's example), the only thing that would be
>>wasted is paper.
>
>The only problem is that if its sent to the Sun, it cannot be retrieved and
>spent. How about sending it to the Moon? Lets start out conservative and put
>1
>billion dollars on the Moon, wait a year and see what happens. It nothing
>happens put another billion dollars on the Moon. It probably costs as much to
>launch as the money that is being sent. We just pile more and more money on
>the
>Moon and eventually some one will send out a mission to retrieve it, or they
>can wait to see if NASA puts more money on the Moon so there will be more
>money
>to collect, but there is a risk in doing so as someone else may launch a
>mission to retrieve the money instead of you.
>
>Tom
>
NonSense:
Aozotorp
>On 30 Dec 2003 16:39:32 GMT, tkal...@aol.com (TKalbfus) wrote, in
>part:
>
>>The only problem is that if its sent to the Sun, it cannot be retrieved and
>>spent.
>
>only paper is wasted, because then the money burned up in the Sun can
>be replaced safely.
>
>If the money is put on the Moon, then if someone retrieves it, it can
>be redeemed for gold in Fort Knox, so replacement money cannot be
>printed; the money remains tied up.
>
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
>
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On 31 Dec 2003 02:10:23 GMT, gedd...@aol.com (G EddieA95) wrote:
>
> >>>Do you feel that a Delta Airlines monopoly would be worse
> >>>than what we have now if seats were $2,000.00 to LEO and
> >>>$10,000.00 to the moon?
> >>
> >>Yes
> >
> >Would you feel the same if the monopoly were held by British Aerospace?
>
> British Aerospace no longer exists. :-p
BAe Systems then.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> >> software?
> >
> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
>
> Yes.
How on earth can you be that certain?
Sander Vesik
> On 30 Dec 2003 16:39:32 GMT, tkal...@aol.com (TKalbfus) wrote, in
> part:
>
>>The only problem is that if its sent to the Sun, it cannot be retrieved and
>>spent.
>
> No, that is not a *problem*, that is the safety feature. That way,
> only paper is wasted, because then the money burned up in the Sun can
> be replaced safely.
>
> If the money is put on the Moon, then if someone retrieves it, it can
> be redeemed for gold in Fort Knox, so replacement money cannot be
> printed; the money remains tied up.
It may be news to you, but the gold standard has been over for decades.
So "replacement" in this case has no meaning.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:17:38 -0700, Hop David
> <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
> >
> >Sure. Right next to the Apple flag and maybe the penguin.
>
> Penguin?
You're joking right? You think Linux has more claim to the Moon than MS and
you don't know what the Penguin references?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> Gate$ is rich enough,
Really? And who exactly determined that?
> and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
> squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
> it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
Your bias is clear.
Eric Chomko
: Christopher wrote:
: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:36 -0700, Hop David
: > <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >
: > >Mark R. Whittington wrote:
: > >> For your outrage:
: > >>
: > >> http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
: > >>
: > >
: > >Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
: > >
: > >If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
: > >sustainable return to space.
: > >
: > >Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
: > >can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
: > >and computers.
: >
: > Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
: Sure, why not?
Yes, I guess it's no worse than seeing stadiums and arenas with the names
like 3Com Park, FedEx Field, or MCI Center.
Eric
: Mike Walsh
Eric Chomko
: "Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:3ff1f60b...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:58:15 GMT, "johnhare"
: > <john...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > >news:3ff1591f...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
: > >
: > >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
: > >>
: > >To expand on the one liners others have used to answer this.
: > >
: > >Do you feel that the Micro$oft that most of us now use is
: > >worse than the computer availability to the public in the 70s?
: > >I'm not defending MS, or claiming that there are no better
: > >suppliers for their product, just asking if MS is worse than
: > >what was available 3 decades ago.
: >
: > Yes, and
: >
: I had no usefull computer availability in the 70s. The programing
: class that I failed had an 8k Wang and a 16k Wang, for 30
: students.
You blame the computer for your lack of ability to learn BASIC?
Hey, any damn fool can program a computer and many of us do!
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Hop David wrote:
: >
: >
: > > Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
: >
: And the Playboy Bunny. Which do you think will make more money from a
: low-gravity, bouncy environment?
That's a trick question! How is Hooters Airlines doing?
Eric
: --
: Scott Lowther, Engineer
: Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
: gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
Eric Chomko
: On 31 Dec 2003 02:13:30 GMT, gedd...@aol.com (G EddieA95) wrote:
: >>> Gate$ has no right to screw up the moon.
: >>
: >>Who does?
: >>
: >>And who are you to determine who does?
: >
: >What constitutes screwing it up,
: Industry always screws up a pristine landscape.
Thank god that Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park system.
Eric
: > since it has no ecosphere to care about, and
Christopher
Because I am quite certain nothing with Gate$ware in it has ever been
in control of my life.
Christopher
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>>
>> Gate$ is rich enough,
>
>Really? And who exactly determined that?
The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
>> and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
>> squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
>> it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
>
>Your bias is clear.
When it comes to choosing a Microsoft OS to a Linux OS you bet. I'm
just sorry I picked PC's to Mac's.
Christopher
>BA*e* Systems then.
Upper case needed.
Christopher
Oh hell, and to think I ate one a few hours ago.
Christopher
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff2afa2...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:17:38 -0700, Hop David
>> <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Christopher wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?
>> >
>> >Sure. Right next to the Apple flag and maybe the penguin.
>>
>> Penguin?
>
>You're joking right?
You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment. ;-)
>You think Linux has more claim to the Moon than MS
Yep.
>and
>you don't know what the Penguin references?
I use Red Hat Linux with not a Penguin in site.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >>
> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
> >
> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
>
> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
Umm, no, you're the one that's claiming he's rich enough. If the gullible
public thought he was rich enough they'd stop buying his stuff.
The fact is, his crappy software powers a lot of businesses and many
businesses make money using his crappy software.
You may not like it, but it's reality.
Hop David
TKalbfus wrote:
>>Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.
>>
>>If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
>>sustainable return to space.
>>
>
>
> Well why not? Each Shuttle mission is basically a flags and footprints mission,
> yet we sustained it for 22 years.
Looks like they've come to an end.
Each Shuttle mission is in my opinion a waste
> of money, yet they keep on launching them. Its easy to imagine Moon missions
> being sustained over 22 years, and I think that would be more interesting than
> ongoing shuttle missions.
>
Maybe you could drag it on for 50 years. But if there's no return on
investment it will eventually collapse.
>
>>Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
>>can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
>>and computers.
>>
>
>
> So you want to have a Moon Prize?
No, I don't want this fantasy you've pulled from your butt.
> The liberals
eat babies and worship the devil. etc., etc.
--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Joann Evans
>
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:14:57 +0200, "Kaido Kert"
> <kaido...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff2ab5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Christopher wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> >> >> software?
> >> >
> >> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >That is very obviously just pure ignorance, unless you have lived deep in a
> >cave your entire life.
>
> Bull.
This might depend on what 'put your life in the hands of' means. I
doubt any Microsoft OS was behind, say, some piece of medical equipment
or aircraft avionics, but your medical *recorde* or airline
*reservations* (though a a BSOD in this case might not be literal) might
be or have been on such a computer....
You both need to be more specific.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Christopher
My doctor uses a Mac, nice one Doc, and I don't even have a passport
so I can't travel abroad.
Christopher
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff32a40.3102465@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >>
>> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
>> >
>> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
>>
>> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
>
>Umm, no, you're the one that's claiming he's rich enough.
$50 billion is quite enough money for one man who had rich parents to
start off with.
>If the gullible
>public thought he was rich enough they'd stop buying his stuff.
With a near monopoply thats a tad hard to do.
>The fact is, his crappy software powers a lot of businesses and many
>businesses make money using his crappy software.
Mores the pity, the sooner they change to Linux the better it'll be
for them, and they will save time and money.
>You may not like it, but it's reality.
I predict for the moment, but all near monopolys eventually end.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:55:47 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff2ab5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Christopher wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> >> >> software?
> >> >
> >> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >How on earth can you be that certain?
> >
>
> Because I am quite certain nothing with Gate$ware in it has ever been
> in control of my life.
MS software is in a lot of places now, they have a lot of embedded solutions
out their running a cut down CE.
Christopher
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff329dd...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:55:47 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
>> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3ff2ab5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Christopher wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
>> >> >> software?
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> >How on earth can you be that certain?
>> >
>>
>> Because I am quite certain nothing with Gate$ware in it has ever been
>> in control of my life.
>
>MS software is in a lot of places now, they have a lot of embedded solutions
>out their running a cut down CE.
>
My PC OS is Red Hat Linux, I don't have a PAD, I don't have a mobile
as I just don't like them as they microwave your brain, and I don't
have a passport so never use booking systems to go aborad, my doctor
uses a Mac. Essentially I avoid Micro$oft packages and essencially
live in a MS free world. :-p
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:57:49 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff329dd...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:55:47 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> >> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3ff2ab5...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> >> On 30 Dec 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Jim Davis <jimd...@earthlink.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Christopher wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Would you put your life in the hands of a MS piece of
> >> >> >> software?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Are you quite certain that you never have?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes.
> >> >
> >> >How on earth can you be that certain?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because I am quite certain nothing with Gate$ware in it has ever been
> >> in control of my life.
> >
> >MS software is in a lot of places now, they have a lot of embedded
solutions
> >out their running a cut down CE.
> >
> My PC OS is Red Hat Linux, I don't have a PAD,
Plenty of alternatives to MS.
I don't have a mobile
> as I just don't like them as they microwave your brain,
They do? Interesting idea. Then you should use a handsfree.
Although I wouldn't recommend an MS OS phone at the moment, the OS is fine
but the radio stack integration is a big dodgy.
and I don't
> have a passport so never use booking systems to go aborad,
So you don't travel then. What an interesting life you lead.
my doctor
> uses a Mac. Essentially I avoid Micro$oft packages and essencially
> live in a MS free world. :-p
In your dreams :-)
Start listing all the computer based systems you interact with, front and
back office and tell me what they are.
Do you have a bank account or do you also shun modern inventions like that?
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
And he doesn't have MS Office on it?
nice one Doc, and I don't even have a passport
> so I can't travel abroad.
That's not something to boast about.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >>
> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
> >
> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
>
> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
What's gulliable about it?
He's standardised an industry and made it available to the non-hobbiest.
> >> and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
> >> squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
> >> it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
> >
> >Your bias is clear.
>
> When it comes to choosing a Microsoft OS to a Linux OS you bet. I'm
> just sorry I picked PC's to Mac's.
?
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:27:34 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff32a40.3102465@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> >> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
> >> >
> >> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
> >>
> >> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
> >
> >Umm, no, you're the one that's claiming he's rich enough.
>
> $50 billion is quite enough money for one man who had rich parents to
> start off with.
Still not your position to say.
He's also made more people multi-millionaires than anybody else in history.
> >If the gullible
> >public thought he was rich enough they'd stop buying his stuff.
>
> With a near monopoply thats a tad hard to do.
How on Earth did he get that...
> >The fact is, his crappy software powers a lot of businesses and many
> >businesses make money using his crappy software.
>
> Mores the pity, the sooner they change to Linux the better it'll be
> for them, and they will save time and money.
Not really. The actual costs are more than just license fees.
Christopher
No.
>nice one Doc, and I don't even have a passport
>> so I can't travel abroad.
>
>That's not something to boast about.
>
80% of Americans don't have a passport either.
Christopher
Christopher
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
Not if you have no need for a PAD.
> I don't have a mobile
>> as I just don't like them as they microwave your brain,
>
>They do? Interesting idea. Then you should use a handsfree.
If you have no need for a mobile no need to have one.
>Although I wouldn't recommend an MS OS phone at the moment, the OS is fine
>but the radio stack integration is a big dodgy.
>
>and I don't
>> have a passport so never use booking systems to go aborad,
>
>So you don't travel then. What an interesting life you lead.
I travel around my home town and I think so.
> my doctor
>> uses a Mac. Essentially I avoid Micro$oft packages and essencially
>> live in a MS free world. :-p
>
>In your dreams :-)
MS packages don't have any impact on it. :-)
>Start listing all the computer based systems you interact with, front and
>back office and tell me what they are.
>
>Do you have a bank account or do you also shun modern inventions like that?
>
My bank I'm sure uses bigger grown up systems instead of MS ones to
process the days transactions.
Christopher
Christopher
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff3fe8...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:27:34 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3ff32a40.3102465@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> >> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
>> >> >
>> >> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
>> >>
>> >> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
>> >
>> >Umm, no, you're the one that's claiming he's rich enough.
>>
>> $50 billion is quite enough money for one man who had rich parents to
>> start off with.
>
>Still not your position to say.
Free speech.
>He's also made more people multi-millionaires than anybody else in history.
Debatable.
>> >If the gullible
>> >public thought he was rich enough they'd stop buying his stuff.
>>
>> With a near monopoply thats a tad hard to do.
>
>How on Earth did he get that...
Having 90% of the PC market.
>> >The fact is, his crappy software powers a lot of businesses and many
>> >businesses make money using his crappy software.
>>
>> Mores the pity, the sooner they change to Linux the better it'll be
>> for them, and they will save time and money.
>
>Not really. The actual costs are more than just license fees.
Installation time and support costs are minimal with Linux, plus you
have access to over a million fellow Linux users for help.
>> >You may not like it, but it's reality.
>>
>> I predict for the moment, but all near monopolys eventually end.
>
>
>
Christopher
Christopher
atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff32a40.3102465@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
>> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>> >>
>> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
>> >
>> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
>>
>> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
>What's gulliable about it?
There are sheep in every crowd and some crowds consist of nothing but
sheep.
>He's standardised an industry and made it available to the non-hobbiest.
And crushed every competitor that threatened his fifedom with better
software and/or products.
>> >> and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
>> >> squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
>> >> it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
>> >
>> >Your bias is clear.
>>
>> When it comes to choosing a Microsoft OS to a Linux OS you bet. I'm
>> just sorry I picked PC's to Mac's.
>
>?
If I had my time again I'd have just gone 100% Mac and would just have
had a PC for games.
Christopher
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> My bank I'm sure uses bigger grown up systems instead of MS ones to
> process the days transactions.
You'd be surprised at what banks use. Hell, if Dell can run one of the most
successfel web-based ordering systems on MS software, I figure some banks
can do fine with even less.
>
>
>
> Christopher
Christopher
<moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ff42c4d...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
>>
>> My bank I'm sure uses bigger grown up systems instead of MS ones to
>> process the days transactions.
>
>You'd be surprised at what banks use.
Probably so, be nice to actually have a job in that sector to see what
they use, even if it's just as a humble operator.
>Hell, if Dell can run one of the most
>successfel web-based ordering systems on MS software, I figure some banks
>can do fine with even less.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Christopher
>
>
Christopher
Richard Schumacher
> For your outrage:
>
> http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf
No sane person wants to hand NASA $200 billion to get "us" back to the
Moon. For one, that's way more than is needed, and for another, NASA
would fail. The United States has far better and more urgent uses for
such sums.
At the same time even these folks would have little objection to, say,
the National Geographic Society going to the Moon.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:06:06 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >And he doesn't have MS Office on it?
>
> No.
Really? What on Earth does he use then?
> >nice one Doc, and I don't even have a passport
> >> so I can't travel abroad.
> >
> >That's not something to boast about.
> >
>
> 80% of Americans don't have a passport either.
I as I said, that's not something to boast about.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:05:11 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >> >> Because I am quite certain nothing with Gate$ware in it has ever
been
> >> >> in control of my life.
> >> >
> >> >MS software is in a lot of places now, they have a lot of embedded
> >solutions
> >> >out their running a cut down CE.
> >> >
> >> My PC OS is Red Hat Linux, I don't have a PAD,
> >
> >Plenty of alternatives to MS.
>
> Not if you have no need for a PAD.
I don't need lots of things I own, I own them because I like having one.
> > I don't have a mobile
> >> as I just don't like them as they microwave your brain,
> >
> >They do? Interesting idea. Then you should use a handsfree.
>
> If you have no need for a mobile no need to have one.
DO you have a phone at home?
> >Although I wouldn't recommend an MS OS phone at the moment, the OS is
fine
> >but the radio stack integration is a big dodgy.
> >
> >and I don't
> >> have a passport so never use booking systems to go aborad,
> >
> >So you don't travel then. What an interesting life you lead.
>
> I travel around my home town and I think so.
Uh Huh.
> > my doctor
> >> uses a Mac. Essentially I avoid Micro$oft packages and essencially
> >> live in a MS free world. :-p
> >
> >In your dreams :-)
>
> MS packages don't have any impact on it. :-)
As I said, in your dreams.
> >Start listing all the computer based systems you interact with, front and
> >back office and tell me what they are.
> >
> >Do you have a bank account or do you also shun modern inventions like
that?
> >
>
> My bank I'm sure uses bigger grown up systems instead of MS ones to
> process the days transactions.
Really?
My bank use MS NT for their front office activities and probably Sun Solaris
at the back end. There's a battle raging at the moment between IBM
Unix/Linux and MS for the bank end systems. MS are making some pretty
serious in roads into banking. As they are in many serious back end
database solutions with Business Server 2003.
You might not recognise it as MS, but its there.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:08:36 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> >
> >Still not your position to say.
>
> Free speech.
You are free to say what you like, you are not free to act.
> >He's also made more people multi-millionaires than anybody else in
history.
>
> Debatable.
No, not really.
> >> >If the gullible
> >> >public thought he was rich enough they'd stop buying his stuff.
> >>
> >> With a near monopoply thats a tad hard to do.
> >
> >How on Earth did he get that...
>
> Having 90% of the PC market.
And how did he get that.
> >> >The fact is, his crappy software powers a lot of businesses and many
> >> >businesses make money using his crappy software.
> >>
> >> Mores the pity, the sooner they change to Linux the better it'll be
> >> for them, and they will save time and money.
> >
> >Not really. The actual costs are more than just license fees.
>
> Installation time and support costs are minimal with Linux,
Nonsense. Support costs are anything like minimal for a "real" computer
system like a bank would use.
plus you
> have access to over a million fellow Linux users for help.
The actual economics for a large system don't work like that.
No bank, for example, is going to rely on those "million".
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:07:17 GMT, "Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM
> atomicrazor . com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ff32a40.3102465@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:31:19 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> >> <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Christopher" <mcai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3ff2aba...@news.dsl.pipex.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Gate$ is rich enough,
> >> >
> >> >Really? And who exactly determined that?
> >>
> >> The gullible public who bought his crappy software by the shipload.
>
> >What's gulliable about it?
>
> There are sheep in every crowd and some crowds consist of nothing but
> sheep.
Poor analogy.
He comoditised what had been a hobby. Good on him.
He also created a license model for software which meant he could become
rich. Again, good on the man.
> >He's standardised an industry and made it available to the non-hobbiest.
>
> And crushed every competitor that threatened his fifedom with better
> software and/or products.
Welcome to the wonderful world that is free market capitalism.
I rather like it myself.
> >> >> and M$ is a monopoly and monopoly's always
> >> >> squash innovation and development that dosn't have M$'s deadhand on
> >> >> it. Linux has more rights to be on the moon then Micro$oft.
> >> >
> >> >Your bias is clear.
> >>
> >> When it comes to choosing a Microsoft OS to a Linux OS you bet. I'm
> >> just sorry I picked PC's to Mac's.
> >
> >?
>
> If I had my time again I'd have just gone 100% Mac and would just have
> had a PC for games.
What stops you changing then?
TKalbfus
>mission,
>> yet we sustained it for 22 years.
>
>Looks like they've come to an end.
>
What are you talking about? The Shuttle program continues, they shuttles are
being readied for launch this year.
>Maybe you could drag it on for 50 years. But if there's no return on
>investment it will eventually collapse.
>
And you don't think we'll develop new technologies for getting to the Moon
during those 50 years. With each new launch vehicle that is built for each
mission, there will be an opportunity to use new technology. The new technology
will reduce the costs of getting to the Moon until their are self sustainable.
a 50 year long program is enough to accomplish this.
>>>Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
>>>can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
>>>and computers.
>>>
>> So you want to have a Moon Prize?
>
>No, I don't want this fantasy you've pulled from your butt.
>
Well you wanted to encourage free enterprise, Moon prises encourage this, so
its your butt I pulled it from.
Tom