Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
larryniven-l · Discussions of the writings of author Larry Niven
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want your group to be featured on the Yahoo! Groups website? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 23205 - 23234 of 23234   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#23234 From: tennant@... (Tennant Stuart)
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:45 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
tennant@...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Wed 11 Jul 2001 (00:47:21 +0100), py7elt@... wrote:
>
>I KNOW the Trek authors aren't really bothered about
>anything but a storyline!- but from a physical point of view
>it's easier to justify perfect information transmission without
>understanding, than perfect measurement of that information.
>I base that on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Just to show that the writers are aware of these issues, the tech-speak
about the transporter system includes "Heisenberg Compensators".


Tennant Stuart
--
   _                       ________________________________________
  (  _    .|_ ||_  _ |_   /
  _)(_)(_)||_)||_ ( )|_ /    Why does *he* get to use his name?
______________________/   tennant@...

#23233 From: tennant@... (Tennant Stuart)
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 10:22 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
tennant@...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Tue 10 Jul 2001 (17:20:09), Carol wrote:
>
>I don't see any reason why replicating technology should be any
>different from transporter technology.  They both store patterns and
>use mass.

The difference is involved in misnomers. The "transporter" does not transport,
it replicates, and (usually) destroys the original. The "replicator" does not
replicate, it creates multiple imperfect copies from stored information.


>Looking at a replicated book shouldn't be any different from reading
>the original.  So, it might not be in as pristine a condition as the
>original. It would keep the original form getting more damage.

This is true, but in ST society the original (they don't worry about the
transporter complication) would have rarity value, whereas the replication is
essentially worthless - why steal or even borrow the book when you can just
make one? The real value is the creation of the book in the first place.


Tennant Stuart
--
   _                       ________________________________________
  (  _    .|_ ||_  _ |_   /
  _)(_)(_)||_)||_ ( )|_ /    Why does *he* get to use his name?
______________________/   tennant@...

#23232 From: Jonathan Andrew Sheen <jsheen@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:54 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
jsheen@...
Send Email Send Email
 
At 12:55 AM 7/11/01 -0400, Noel wrote:


>As for the Supreme Court....well, what they did was
>legal, sincethey decide what the word "legal" means.
>However, it must be pointed out that three at least
>three members of the majority (Rehnquist, Scalia,
>Thomas) have published several articles, and made
>several speeches heavily in favor of granting states
>the widest possible latitude in areas not
>specifically regulated by the Constitution...and how
>the states count votes is not one of them. Draw your
>own conclusions.

I did mention several Justices violating their own stated legal principles
to hand the election to "their guy." The same Justices who held that states
are exempt from being sued by citizens in a ruling so broad that it led one
Florida legislator to propose that the state go into business reprinting
copyrighted books and making counterfeit Rolexes said that the State of
Florida couldn't use the phrase "Establish the will of the voter" as a
guideline, calling it "too nebulous" -- even as Ginsburg pointed out in her
stunningly clear dissent that it is surely no more nebulous than "Beyond a
reasonable doubt," a standard acceptable to courts across the country.

That said, it is in fairness hard for me to blame Thomas -- when Scalia
says "Green," Thomas replies "And a deep, rich green it is, too, sir!"

Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsheen@...

      "Talk about passing the time..."
      -Special Agent Fox W. Mulder, FBI

#23231 From: "Akin, George D. - Contractor" <AkinG@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:45 am
Subject: RE: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704
AkinG@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I plugged this site once before . . . www.abebooks.com.  Go there, set up a profile/account (it is free), set up a "wants" list and within 24 hours you will get an e-mail from them with information on how and where to get your "want".  I have purchased many books this way--all from used book stores.
 
Recently I "wanted" "Star Watchman" by Ben Bova as I am collecting books that got me started reading Science Fiction for my nephews.  I received over 80 matches from all over the States and a few from the UK.
 
This is a good service. 
 
George A
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dblspace@... [mailto:Dblspace@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:43 PM
To: larryniven-l@...
Subject: Re: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704

Great - now if only someone could show me where to get my hands on a copy of
Volume Four! I just returned from vacationing in Long Beach, and while I
found at least one excellent used book store, no copy of MK IV. I found
Starquake by Forward though! AND How to Win Friends & Kick Ass & Influence
People by CNN's Lynne Russell. God I love used bookstores! Also a book from
my childhood - the wonderfully illustrated Superworlds by Joshua Strickland
(non-fiction). Before you spend all your time and money with Amazon or the
local Barnes & Noble, don't forget to patronize your local used book dealer.
You'll be glad you did.


David

#23230 From: "J.D. Spangler" <ayrsayle@...>
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:34 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
ayrsayle@...
Send Email Send Email
 
At 07:21 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Mark Stang <stangm@...> wrote:

>--- Carol T L Phillips <redflame@...>
>wrote:
><snip>
>
> > You didn't follow the election very closely, did
> > you, Mark?  Half of the
> > Supreme Court was firmly in the  hands of the
> > Republicans, and should have
> > excused themselves, merely based upon the appearance
> > of impropriety.  They
> > didn't.  Their decision was purely partisan.
>
><snip>
>
>Read: "At Any Cost"
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262274/o/qid=994817722/sr=2-1/ref=ap\
s_sr_b_1_1/107-6894040-7366926

I looked at the link... funny, considering this was the nicest review given
it on the page:

"The only reason that I could rate this book with 2 stars instead of one is
that I am a Bush backer and distain Al Gore. However, I hoped to read a
factual, well researched and documented account of how low Al Gore would
go. Instead, I got editorial commentary.
Sammon makes MANY statements that he passes as fact, yet offers no source
or documentation. This is a one sided account that portrays Al Gore as the
Anti-Christ (perhaps true) and George W. Bush as a Saint (decidedly not the
whole truth). Sammon makes downright silly statements. For example, talking
about exit polling in Florida he is critical that the Voter News Service
"only" sampled "4,356 Floridians or .07% of the 6 million people who cast
ballots in the state." The truth is that this is a HUGE sample size and
results in a margin of error of about 1%--granted less than the difference
in the Florida vote but still any statistician will tell you that it is an
excellent sample size.
If you are willing to accept any premise that Gore is evil and want no
information on what Bush may have done to win the Presidency, you'll love
this book. If you want a balanced read about what both men did to try and
become the 43rd President don't waste your time.
Once again, I wish Jack Germond and Jules Whitcover were still writing
accounts of our national elections."

If even a Bush backer doesn't like it that much... *shrug* I'll look for it
in the library anyway.

Regards,
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>J.D. Spangler, Artist and Student                           <>
<>"Since light travels faster than sound, some people seem    <>
<>interesting until you hear them speak." -anonymous          <>
<>http://home.earthlink.net/~ayrsayle/                        <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

#23229 From: Dblspace@...
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:43 am
Subject: Re: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704
Dblspace@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Great - now if only someone could show me where to get my hands on a copy of
Volume Four! I just returned from vacationing in Long Beach, and while I
found at least one excellent used book store, no copy of MK IV. I found
Starquake by Forward though! AND How to Win Friends & Kick Ass & Influence
People by CNN's Lynne Russell. God I love used bookstores! Also a book from
my childhood - the wonderfully illustrated Superworlds by Joshua Strickland
(non-fiction). Before you spend all your time and money with Amazon or the
local Barnes & Noble, don't forget to patronize your local used book dealer.
You'll be glad you did.


David

#23228 From: "Euan Ritchie" <euan@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
euan@...
Send Email Send Email
 
> You're getting a little shrill there my friend. It's just Star
> Trek. The sci-fi equivalent of Twinkies.

I'm depressed. No one seems to have spotted the joke.

#23227 From: "Euan Ritchie" <euan@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 5:52 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
euan@...
Send Email Send Email
 
> >You can't really believe that.  You must be writing it as hyperbole.

>From a distance the U.S Supreme court sure looked like it voted straight
along party lines and damn the citizens rights.

#23226 From: "Euan Ritchie" <euan@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 5:51 am
Subject: Re: L.A. County Targets Satellites in Out-of-This-World Tax Plan
euan@...
Send Email Send Email
 
> I knew we were in trouble, but imagine if LA county gets away with this...

Capital idea. I'm all for it. Hughes will just have to relocate to some
other jurisdiction. Hmmm, now where might be a good place for such a company
to go...

#23225 From: Noel Erinjeri <nerinjer@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:55 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
nerinjer@...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 BEAR1701A@... wrote:

> The Election was STOLEN and will always be Tainted
>

	 It's impossible to tell. The final margin was something like 600
out of 6 million....there's no way the system is accurate to 0.0005%. The
conduct of both sides during this thing was pretty swinish. The Democrats
for only want to count where they'd pick up votes and the Republicans for
trying to stop any sort of counting at all. They're all a load of right
bastards.
	 As for the Supreme Court....well, what they did was legal, since
they decide what the word "legal" means. However, it must be pointed out
that three at least three members of the majority (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas)
have
published several articles, and made several speeches heavily in favor of
granting states the widest possible latitude in areas not specifically
regulated by the Constitution...and how the states count votes is not one
of them. Draw your own conclusions.

Noel Erinjeri

#23224 From: "Bill & Cynthia" <freeaqua@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:30 am
Subject: Re: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704
freeaqua@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Excellent! Can't wait.

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Niven" <organlegger@...>
To: <larryniven-l@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704


> Late-breaking news:  Man-Kzin Wars IX will be out in January 2002 as a
> hardback.
>
> Larry Niven
>
>

#23223 From: "Frank Gasperik" <felix33@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:21 am
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 
<snip>

>
> Now there are some interesting stories to be told perhaps, of the
> economic dislocations and scrambling when the technology took hold.  I
> recommend George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" series which dealt
> with this as a theme.  It's an old series (1947) but still
> entertaining. And I've always been somewhat amazed that there wasn't
> an episode of how some planetary culture had to deal with ST
> "replicator" technology.

	 I think Lester Del Rey (Or was L.Sprague?) duplicated Planet.
You had to put what you wanted duplicated into one part of the
device and it would make an exact copy. Excluding the Age and
what ever ware the subject object had been through.

	 Frank G.

#23222 From: "Frank Gasperik" <felix33@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:15 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Err, Carol? The STOCK MARKET is NOT the Economy!

	 The Economy has inertia and takes much time to change
directions.

	 Frank G.

From:            "Carol T L Phillips" <redflame@...>
To:              <larryniven-l@...>
Subject:         Re: Star Trek question
Date sent:       Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:47:59 -0500
Send reply to:   larryniven-l@...

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
> >--- Jonathan Andrew Sheen <jsheen@...> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Or the economy was on relatively solid ground until the november election
> >> and the fiasco that followed showed the American people that they were
> >> going to be led by a government they have no confidence in, forced on
> >> them by an archaic technicality in election law, and a venal,
> >> self-serving conservative majority in the Supreme Court, several of
> >> whom clearly violated their own frequently-espoused legal principles
> >> to render a partisan verdict.
> >
> >You can't really believe that.  You must be writing it
> >as hyperbole.
>
> You didn't follow the election very closely, did you, Mark?  Half of the
> Supreme Court was firmly in the  hands of the Republicans, and should have
> excused themselves, merely based upon the appearance of impropriety.  They
> didn't.  Their decision was purely partisan.
>
> And the economy can go down immediately because of any number of reasons: it
> rained, the season's blockbuster movie bombed, the Presidential election
> proved that our democracy is a sham.  No one, even the experts REALLY knows
> why is goes up and down.  It is like hemlines in fashion.  However, I do not
> believe our economy is down for the count.  Just a little hiccup.  I'm sure
> it will pickup, especially by the time  we get a legally elected president
> in office.
>
>              Carol                            http://www.ghg.net/redflame/
>     ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>     'We in the writing profession have this technical term for people
>        who attribute the opinion of characters to the author himself;
>                                     we call them "idiots." '
> 'Sure I'm prejudiced!  None of my best friends are idiots!' --Larry Niven
>     ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
>        Co Manager of Known Space http://www/larryniven.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

#23221 From: BEAR1701A@...
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
BEAR1701A@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 7/10/2001 7:15:46 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
stangm@... writes:

<<
  Bah. We have a legally elected president.  You just
  don't like him, so you comfort yourself with these
  fairy tales.  It was the Democrats who tried to get
  around the law, with the help of the Florida Supreme
  Court changing the election rules after the election.

  They counted once.  Bush won.  They counted again.
  Bush won.  The counted a third time in some places.
  Bush still won.  Then after it was over, the
  newspapers went in and counted what everyone else said
  should be counted.  Bush won there too.
   >>
The Election was STOLEN and will always be Tainted

"Any resemblance between myself and someone who knows
what's going on is simply coincidental."

  <A HREF="http://myths-facts.com/go/index.cgi?bear1701a">Myths-Facts.com -
Subscribe FREE and receive Facts about Myths. Make Mon</A>


"Out of My Mind......Back In 5 Minutes"

#23220 From: BEAR1701A@...
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
BEAR1701A@...
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 7/10/2001 7:04:21 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
Wallace.McClure@... writes:

<<
  Secondly, the ST universe does have a huge economic hole in it in the
  replicator/ transporter technology.  Essentially, given enough energy
  any inanimate object can be replicated given a pattern.  This means
  that physical money is essentially worthless -- you can always
  counterfeit something to replace it.  Given the hidden ST assumption
  that energy is very low cost, physical money is worthless -- and I
  assume, hence the "cashless" initial society.
   >>
Well they also said it was easy to detect replicated matter

"Any resemblance between myself and someone who knows
what's going on is simply coincidental."

  <A HREF="http://myths-facts.com/go/index.cgi?bear1701a">Myths-Facts.com -
Subscribe FREE and receive Facts about Myths. Make Mon</A>


"Out of My Mind......Back In 5 Minutes"

#23219 From: "Larry Niven" <organlegger@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:09 am
Subject: RE: LARRYNIVEN-L digest 704
organlegger@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Late-breaking news:  Man-Kzin Wars IX will be out in January 2002 as a
hardback.

Larry Niven

#23218 From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:21 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
stangm@...
Send Email Send Email
 
--- Carol T L Phillips <redflame@...>
wrote:
<snip>

> You didn't follow the election very closely, did
> you, Mark?  Half of the
> Supreme Court was firmly in the  hands of the
> Republicans, and should have
> excused themselves, merely based upon the appearance
> of impropriety.  They
> didn't.  Their decision was purely partisan.

<snip>

Read: "At Any Cost"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895262274/o/qid=994817722/sr=2-1/ref=aps\
_sr_b_1_1/107-6894040-7366926

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#23217 From: "Tim O'Neil" <bwana@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:19 am
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
bwana@...
Send Email Send Email
 
At 07:06 PM 7/10/2001, you wrote:
>First, the ST universe seems to have tried originally to be a
>"cashless" universe -- without evident money (as physical tokens of
>value), but where money as an economic means of transfer or measure of
>value still appears to used.  (Didn't they use "units" at one episode,
>instead of saying "dollars".)

[snip]

  >Secondly, the ST universe does have a huge economic hole in it in the
  >replicator/ transporter technology.  Essentially, given enough energy
  >any inanimate object can be replicated given a pattern.  This means
  >that physical money is essentially worthless -- you can always
  >counterfeit something to replace it.  Given the hidden ST assumption
  >that energy is very low cost, physical money is worthless -- and I
  >assume, hence the "cashless" initial society.

This is a point I've been trying to make; we don't friggin'
know how a cashless society would work exactly. Its like Mana,
we know we want it and it would be good for us, but how do you
make it? And Carol, I wasn't trying to be mean earlier, my point
only was that comparing barter to cash in this thread isn't
relevant since you can't acquire wealth with the efficiency required
to make a difference when in a barter-only economic system.

bwana aka
tim@...

#23216 From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:12 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
stangm@...
Send Email Send Email
 
--- Carol T L Phillips <redflame@...>
wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
> >--- Jonathan Andrew Sheen
> <jsheen@...> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Or the economy was on relatively solid ground
> until the November election
> >> and the fiasco that followed showed the American
> people that they were
> >> going to be led by a government they have no
> confidence in, forced on
> >> them by an archaic technicality in election law,
> and a venal,
> >> self-serving conservative majority in the Supreme
> Court, several of
> >> whom clearly violated their own
> frequently-espoused legal principles
> >> to render a partisan verdict.
> >
> >You can't really believe that.  You must be writing
> it
> >as hyperbole.
>
> You didn't follow the election very closely, did
> you, Mark?

Actually, I followed it quite closely, including
reading the decisions by the Florida and US Supreme
Courts

  Half of the
> Supreme Court was firmly in the  hands of the
> Republicans,

What?  How do you figure that?


and should have
> excused themselves, merely based upon the appearance
> of impropriety.  They
> didn't.  Their decision was purely partisan.
>


Hog -freakin- wash!  SEVEN Justices said that there
were problems with equal representation in the way the
Florida Supreme Court ruled.  Plus what is this
"should have excused themselves" horse-hockey?  How
were they "in the hands of the Republicans"  ?Because
they might be of a more conservative viewpoint? Should
the liberal justices have recused themselves because
they liked Gore?  Ridiculous.

The Gore camp asked for recounts only in selected
counties. Why?  Because they were heavily democratic
counties.  Is that fair?  The county supervisors in
Broward changed their rules on counting votes THREE
times because, evidently, they weren't coming up with
enough Gore votes using their original rules.  Is that
fair?  BTW, even if they had finished counting the way
Gore wanted, BUSH still would have won! (see the Miami
Herald articles on this)

> And the economy can go down immediately because of
> any number of reasons: it
> rained, the season's blockbuster movie bombed, the
> Presidential election
> proved that our democracy is a sham.  No one, even
> the experts REALLY knows
> why is goes up and down.  It is like hemlines in
> fashion.  However, I do not
> believe our economy is down for the count.  Just a
> little hiccup.  I'm sure
> it will pickup, especially by the time  we get a
> legally elected president
> in office.

Bah. We have a legally elected president.  You just
don't like him, so you comfort yourself with these
fairy tales.  It was the Democrats who tried to get
around the law, with the help of the Florida Supreme
Court changing the election rules after the election.

They counted once.  Bush won.  They counted again.
Bush won.  The counted a third time in some places.
Bush still won.  Then after it was over, the
newspapers went in and counted what everyone else said
should be counted.  Bush won there too.

He won.  Get over it.

Mark





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#23215 From: "Mc Clure, Wallace A" <Wallace.McClure@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:06 am
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
Wallace.McClure@...
Send Email Send Email
 
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890

I've been following this discussion with half an ear, since things
have been really busy around here, but I thought I would make a couple
of comments.

First, the ST universe seems to have tried originally to be a
"cashless" universe -- without evident money (as physical tokens of
value), but where money as an economic means of transfer or measure of
value still appears to used.  (Didn't they use "units" at one episode,
instead of saying "dollars".)

As an aside, we as a society are rapidly moving in this direction,
with a variety of recent developments over the last 10-20 years.  Just
for grins I sat down with my tax return and figured out actually how
much money (as physical tokens) I see of my earnings -- things like
paper or metal currency, stock certificates, bonds, etc.  I was
surprised to realize it was around 5-7% of my annual earnings that I
actually saw as money -- the rest was electronic or debit transfer
(including checks) from one virtual account to another.

Secondly, the ST universe does have a huge economic hole in it in the
replicator/ transporter technology.  Essentially, given enough energy
any inanimate object can be replicated given a pattern.  This means
that physical money is essentially worthless -- you can always
counterfeit something to replace it.  Given the hidden ST assumption
that energy is very low cost, physical money is worthless -- and I
assume, hence the "cashless" initial society.

Now there are some interesting stories to be told perhaps, of the
economic dislocations and scrambling when the technology took hold.  I
recommend George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" series which dealt
with this as a theme.  It's an old series (1947) but still
entertaining. And I've always been somewhat amazed that there wasn't
an episode of how some planetary culture had to deal with ST
"replicator" technology.

Lastly, the hidden assumption in the ST universe is that power is very
inexpensive, and available on demand in huge amounts.  Given that, you
can make replicators and everything else work fine.  But without low
cost energy, energy becomes the currency of the economy.  That in
itself can cause huge economic dislocations and upheaval in society.
(This seems to be my day for digging into the old SF library -- )
Randal Garrett did a good series of stories on this in the 1960's
using the theme of cheap, simple fusion energy.  That series is pretty
rare now, of which "Run Bookworm Run" is probably the most accessible.

And for the ob:Niven reference -- the above series listed were
basically thought experiments about the impact of new technologies
upon society.  Larry did the same with a series about teleportation,
which is an excellent third example to put up with the others listed
above.

#23214 From: "Carol T L Phillips" <redflame@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:47 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
redflame@...
Send Email Send Email
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
>--- Jonathan Andrew Sheen <jsheen@...> wrote:
><snip>
>> Or the economy was on relatively solid ground until the november election
>> and the fiasco that followed showed the American people that they were
>> going to be led by a government they have no confidence in, forced on
>> them by an archaic technicality in election law, and a venal,
>> self-serving conservative majority in the Supreme Court, several of
>> whom clearly violated their own frequently-espoused legal principles
>> to render a partisan verdict.
>
>You can't really believe that.  You must be writing it
>as hyperbole.

You didn't follow the election very closely, did you, Mark?  Half of the
Supreme Court was firmly in the  hands of the Republicans, and should have
excused themselves, merely based upon the appearance of impropriety.  They
didn't.  Their decision was purely partisan.

And the economy can go down immediately because of any number of reasons: it
rained, the season's blockbuster movie bombed, the Presidential election
proved that our democracy is a sham.  No one, even the experts REALLY knows
why is goes up and down.  It is like hemlines in fashion.  However, I do not
believe our economy is down for the count.  Just a little hiccup.  I'm sure
it will pickup, especially by the time  we get a legally elected president
in office.

              Carol                            http://www.ghg.net/redflame/
     ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
     'We in the writing profession have this technical term for people
        who attribute the opinion of characters to the author himself;
                                     we call them "idiots." '
'Sure I'm prejudiced!  None of my best friends are idiots!' --Larry Niven
     ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
        Co Manager of Known Space http://www/larryniven.org

#23213 From: Michael J Ash <mikeash@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:20 am
Subject: Re: L.A. County Targets Satellites in Out-of-This-World Tax Plan
mikeash@...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, ~Felix~ wrote:

>     I knew we were in trouble, but imagine if LA county gets away with
> this...

As if there weren't enough obstacles in the way of putting satellites into
orbit, and as if the electricity situation wasn't enough of a reason for
companies to leave the state....

--
"From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon.
  And it's not a miracle, we just decided to go." -- Jim Lovell

Mike Ash - <http://www.mikeash.com/>, <mailto:mail@...>

#23212 From: ~Felix~ <felix33@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:06 am
Subject: L.A. County Targets Satellites in Out-of-This-World Tax Plan
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I knew we were in trouble, but imagine if LA county gets away with
this...

     Frank G.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-000056553jul10.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2\
Dstate

Los Angeles Times - latimes.com
Your opinion counts! Take our redesign survey. Click Here!

  

Home | Register | Site Map | Archives | Print Edition | Advertise | Feedback | Help
Marketplace
 jobs • cars • homes • rentals
 Arts and Entertainment
 Movies, Music, TV, Dining
California
 Columnists
 Community Papers
Features

LA Times
Subscription Services
Subscribe
Change of Address
Vacation Stops
Suspend Delivery
College Discount
Gift Subscriptions
Mail Subscriptions
FAQ

Classifieds
jobs, homes,
cars, rentals
Print Ads
Shopping
Advertising Supplements

July 10, 2001
Talk about it E-mail story Print

EL SEGUNDO, LOS ANGELES COUNTYWIDE
L.A. County Targets Satellites in Out-of-This-World Tax Plan
*

Times Headlines
•  Thousands of Furnaces Recalled
•  Protected Areas Proposed to Restore Fish Populations
•  Adventure Turns to Tragedy for Boy, Uncle
•  Electricity Cost Data Spread the Blame
•  San Marino May Limit Power Lawn Tools

 
 
NANCY VOGEL, TIMES STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO -- Los Angeles County officials, realizing that there is no tax collector in outer space, hope to fill the void.

Reaching 22,300 miles above the equator, boldly going where no tax collector has gone before, Los Angeles County Assessor Rick Auerbach is angling to impose property taxes on several satellites.

Though never done before in California, the move is legal, say state and county tax attorneys. That's because, they say, nobody else is taxing the satellites and they are valuable property owned by a Los Angeles County-based company. Worth as much as $100 million each to Hughes Electronics in El Segundo, the satellites could bring in millions of dollars a year in taxes to schools and government. County officials are considering assessing at least eight satellites owned by Hughes.

The company is not happy about the tax collector's attempt to extend his jurisdiction beyond this world.

Brian Paperny, Hughes vice president of taxes, described the company's executives as "very concerned with the concept of a tax being assessed on a stationary object 22,300 miles away from the Earth, which is residing in a fixed parking slot . . . over the equator, far, far away from Los Angeles County and the borders of California."

The idea has sparked a debate more cosmic than most in the annals of property taxation.

Auerbach, the assessor, figures that satellites are no different from other movable personal property that he has authority to tax--like boats, construction equipment and ice skating costumes.

Yes, said Auerbach, who has researched the issue, in a 1976 case a judge determined that the property of the Ice Capades could be taxed by Los Angeles County although it spent most of the year traveling elsewhere with the ice-skating extravaganza.

"It happens with a lot of other property," said Auerbach. "The difference with the satellites, obviously, is that they're pretty far removed from Earth."

Hughes argues that the satellites are in a different class altogether.

"The property in question here is geostationary," said Larry Hoenig, a San Francisco attorney representing Hughes Electronics. "Geostationary satellites sit above the equator in a fixed position; they do not rotate around the Earth. So the satellites we're talking about here are not movable property."

Attorneys for the state Board of Equalization, consulted by Auerbach, came down on the county assessor's side.

"While the satellites are in Earth orbit," wrote the Board of Equalization attorneys in a background paper, "they nonetheless have a situs for tax purposes in Los Angeles County, California."

Auerbach's office first began questioning whether it could tax eight satellites during a routine audit this year of the property that Hughes Electronics owned from 1991 through 1994. If Auerbach succeeds in taxing those satellites, presumably other satellites owned by Hughes and its subsidiaries would be taxed.

The satellites serve a multitude of functions, from beaming HBO movies into American homes to speeding up credit card processing for motorists who pay at unmanned gas pumps, said Hughes spokesman Richard Dore.

Hughes launches the satellites either from Cape Canaveral in Florida or from French Guyana, he said. They are then guided to an orbit approved by the Federal Communications Commission. The satellites remain fixed in that orbit for 10 to 15 years, until they run out of the fuel necessary to adjust their positions so they are constantly pointed at Earth. Then they are moved to a designated space graveyard.

The satellites, said Dore, never pass over California territory.

Nonetheless, Auerbach said, he feels compelled to tax the satellites.

"I've read the opinions," he said, "and it's pretty clear in my mind that it's taxable."

The elected officials who oversee the Board of Equalization, an agency that collects one-third of the state's annual revenues, are not so sure.

Last week, the board backed away from its own legal staff's opinion. In a 3-2 vote, the board moved to warn Auerbach that the advice he got from the board's legal division is not necessarily the opinion of the board itself and that he should not count on it.

State Controller and board Chairwoman Kathleen Connell said the issue of taxing satellites will become more pressing if President Bush succeeds in launching his missile defense strategy. She said that plan, aimed at protecting the nation from enemy missiles, entails the installation of satellite transmitters along the West Coast.

In some future regulatory process, Connell said, the board will determine just how far the tax collector can reach into outer space.

Auerbach said he thinks he knows where the issue will land.

"I do believe," he said, "this will eventually end up in the courts."




Southland Funbook

Apartments.com

Subscribe NOW and SAVE on your home delivery subscription!

 



Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
By visiting this site, you are agreeing to our Terms of Service.



#23211 From: Mark Stang <stangm@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:00 am
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
stangm@...
Send Email Send Email
 
--- Jonathan Andrew Sheen
<jsheen@...> wrote:
<snip>
> Or the economy was on relatively solid ground until
> the november election
> and the fiasco that followed showed the American
> people that they were
> going to be led by a government they have no
> confidence in, forced on them
> by an archaic technicality in election law, and a
> venal, self-serving
> conservative majority in the Supreme Court, several
> of whom clearly
> violated their own frequently-espoused legal
> principles to render a
> partisan verdict.

You can't really believe that.  You must be writing it
as hyperbole.

>
> Or any of several dozen other possibilities.
>

Ahh.  You were.

Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#23210 From: "Frank Gasperik" <felix33@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:24 am
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 


                  <SNIP>


> At 04:43 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Frank Gasperik wrote:
> >
> >I will clarify.
> >
> >We have Government(s) that are doing things that
> >they forbid their Citizens from doing. How can this
> >be either Ethical or Moral, where the Government is
> >supposedly a reflection of the people that support
> >it?
>
> That doesn't clarify, because it doesn't explain how the question ties into
> the discussion.

           Apparently you would rather disregard this.


> >As to Clinton: His Political behaviour was IMO no
> >different than his Personal behaviour. He lied to
> >Congress and the American people. He and his
> >administration managed to keep lying about an
> >economy that was coming apart for just one example.
>
> Or the economy was on relatively solid ground until the november election
> and the fiasco that followed showed the American people that they were
> going to be led by a government they have no confidence in, forced on them
> by an archaic technicality in election law, and a venal, self-serving
> conservative majority in the Supreme Court, several of whom clearly
> violated their own frequently-espoused legal principles to render a
> partisan verdict.

                 If you believe THAT I happen to have some
Sunbaked Land in Florida that just happens to  be available for
a modest price. Or perhaps you would care for this I own bridge
in New York City?

	 YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF AN ECONOMY AS LARGE AS THAT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2 MONTHS!

	 Frank G.

#23209 From: E L Tonkin <py7elt@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:16 am
Subject: Re: Poll Idea
py7elt@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Surface gravity of Pluto is apparently 0.66N, mass is 1.29x10^22kg, radius
is 1150km.

Precisely what sort of shockwave were we expecting here? I forget the
story - what exactly is causing it to blow up, how much of the planet is
actually blowing up?  I admit it; this book is in storage for the moment
;-)

BTW: Pluto's atmosphere is principally nitrogen, with some carbon monoxide
and methane. Surface pressure is just a few microbars... Apparently about
30% of its volume is water ice (the rest is rock). Its density is about
2gm/cm3. Surface temperature is about 40 K. No idea which of those facts
will come in useful, if any.

Em



// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde

/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to
nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse.  - Tonkin's
First Computer Dictionary

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Frank Gasperik wrote:

>
>  Anyone care to crunch some numbers on this one? Shockwave Front
> velocity/Density -vs- Pluto surface Gravity?
>
>  Frank G.

#23208 From: Michael J Ash <mikeash@...>
Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:09 am
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
mikeash@...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, E L Tonkin wrote:

> To be honest I suspect they really meant, "Darn, we don't want
> shuttlecraft in our show, let's replace it with some magic. Uh-oh, a
> problem - let's insert some technobabble" but it's good sound fake
> science and deserves some respect...

You're basically correct, except instead of "we don't want", it was "we
can't afford to have". They wanted to explore new and different planets
every week, and they didn't have the effects budget to land a ship each
time, so the transporter was born.

--
"From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the moon.
  And it's not a miracle, we just decided to go." -- Jim Lovell

Mike Ash - <http://www.mikeash.com/>, <mailto:mail@...>

#23207 From: Jonathan Andrew Sheen <jsheen@...>
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:58 pm
Subject: RE: Star Trek question
jsheen@...
Send Email Send Email
 
At 04:43 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Frank Gasperik wrote:
>
>I will clarify.
>
>We have Government(s) that are doing things that
>they forbid their Citizens from doing. How can this
>be either Ethical or Moral, where the Government is
>supposedly a reflection of the people that support
>it?

That doesn't clarify, because it doesn't explain how the question ties into
the discussion.

>As to Clinton: His Political behaviour was IMO no
>different than his Personal behaviour. He lied to
>Congress and the American people. He and his
>administration managed to keep lying about an
>economy that was coming apart for just one example.

Or the economy was on relatively solid ground until the november election
and the fiasco that followed showed the American people that they were
going to be led by a government they have no confidence in, forced on them
by an archaic technicality in election law, and a venal, self-serving
conservative majority in the Supreme Court, several of whom clearly
violated their own frequently-espoused legal principles to render a
partisan verdict.

Or any of several dozen other possibilities.

>I suspect we'll find others as time goes on.

"I am not a crook!" -Richard M. Nixon.
"Well.... I can't recall." -Ronald Reagan.
"Read My Lips: No New Taxes" -George Bush.
"The American People have spoken." -George W. Bush.



Jonathan Andrew Sheen

http://www.leviathanstudios.com
Leviathan of the GEI (Detached.)
jsheen@...

      "Talk about passing the time..."
      -Special Agent Fox W. Mulder, FBI

#23206 From: "Frank Gasperik" <felix33@...>
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:51 pm
Subject: Re: Star Trek question
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Where in MARX is there provision for a MILITARY?

		 Frank G.

From:            "Euan Ritchie" <euan@...>
To:              <larryniven-l@...>
Subject:         Re: Star Trek question
Date sent:       Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:17:25 +1200
Send reply to:   larryniven-l@...

>
> > I've always thought the human race was depicted as Marxist communism (as
> > Marx proposed it, not the bastardizations that have been implemented in
> > various countries.)
>
> Oh big raspberry to that. Actions speak louder than words and the words in
> ST are never more than lip service to tolerance and acceptance, in the end
> it's kowtow or die. That's what pisses me off the most about it - the
> humanity of ST are the biggest hypocritical prats in the universe.
>
>

#23205 From: "Frank Gasperik" <felix33@...>
Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:50 pm
Subject: Re: Poll Idea
felix33@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Anyone care to crunch some numbers on this one? Shockwave Front
velocity/Density -vs- Pluto surface Gravity?

	 Frank G.

From:            "Euan Ritchie" <euan@...>
To:              <larryniven-l@...>
Subject:         Re: Poll Idea
Date sent:       Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:11:33 +1200
Send reply to:   larryniven-l@...

>
> >  He might have been blown into orbit first.
> >   >>
> >
> > But he'd have been defrosted.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. Pluto didn't 'explode', it burnt. As the gasses
> combust their expansion would form a blast wave travelling well in front of
> the burning gasses. He might get blown clear before being roasted.
>
>

Messages 23205 - 23234 of 23234   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help