Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_3/V16NO300.ZIP/V16NO300

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 05:05:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #300
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 11 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
                      Goddard held responsible?
               Moons rotation period question (3 msgs)
                      My DCX .sig and DCX update
                          mystery satellite?
                        NASA and gold (3 msgs)
                            Nasa and plans
                      NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
                 plans, and absence thereof (2 msgs)
                   Query on sun synchronous orbits
                          Rocket Propulsion
            Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
                  The courage of anonymity (4 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 21:57:05 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goddard held responsible?

Gibson Lam asks:
>> Of all the eventual uses that rocket
>> propulsion made possible, such as war missiles or the space shuttle, does
>> anyone think that Goddard should be responsible for the eventual uses of
>> his invention?

Tim Thompson replies:
>   Do you mean by "responsible", something like "since rockets were made into
>weapons of war, It's all Goddard's fault". Or perhaps "Thank Goddard for space
>flight"? No, I don't think Goddard should be responsible. With precious few
>exceptions, how can any inventor anticipate the use/misuse to which his/her
>inventions will be put?

Well, Goddard can hardly be responsible for the acts of others, but
besides that, since he's dead, he can't be praised, blamed, affected
by bad consequences, or rewarded with good.  So, even if you were to
hold him responsible, he'd never know.

Or do you mean, for example, his 'honor' should be affected, calling
him hero or goat?  I think that's a personal decision.  I, personally,
think he was ok.  Comparable to, say, Edison or Colt.

Before you go getting upset about the uses his invention were put to,
don't forget the great train of chemical discoveries necessary for
the development of nerve gas or penecillin (sp?), or the invention of the
automobile, responsible for untold numbers of marriges and conceptions,
as well as 350,000 deaths annually in the U.S., or...

"Anything worthwile can be a weapon." - Larry Niven

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 12:31:57 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moons rotation period question
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have a question.
Why does the Moon's rotation period exactly match its
revolution period such that it always presents the
same face to the Earth? (...and we end up with a
darkside.)  What is the physical mechanism that
has caused this?
Is this common for moons around the solar system?

-Bret-

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 22:00:59 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moons rotation period question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Why does the Moon's rotation period exactly match its
>revolution period such that it always presents the
>same face to the Earth?

Tidal drag.  Moving tidal bulges around takes energy; it has to come
from somewhere.

>Is this common for moons around the solar system?

Yes.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 22:25:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moons rotation period question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] asks:
> Why does the Moon's rotation period exactly match its
> revolution period such that it always presents the
> same face to the Earth? (...and we end up with a
> darkside.)  What is the physical mechanism that
> has caused this?

It is called 'synchronous rotation', and it occurs because just as the
Moon has a tidal effect on the Earth, so the Earth has a tidal effect
on the Moon.  Since the Moon is only about 1/80th of the Earth's mass
_and_ it's center of mass is offset from its geometric center in the
direction toward the Earth, the Moon became tidaly locked to the Earth
long ago.  The Moon does sway back and forth a bit, with a sort of
pendulum-like motion called nutation.  Because of this we are able to
actually see ~200 degrees of the Moon's surface rather than the 180
degrees we would be able to see if there were no nutation.

> Is this common for moons around the solar system?

Yes, it is.  There are also more complicated spin-orbit couplings,
such as Mercury's 3:2 case, where Mercury spins three times on its
axis every two revolutions around the Sun.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 93 00:54:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: My DCX .sig and DCX update
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:
: The NRC recently visited the DCX hanger and came away very impressed. Last
: year they where mildly critical of the effort but seeing actual hardware
: being built so quickly and efficiently has changed some [minds].

I missed an acronym.  The NRC?  Nuclear Regulatory Commission?  Surely not.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Good ideas are not adopted automatically.  They must be driven into
       practice with courageous impatience." -- Admiral Hyman G. Rickover

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 01:03:26 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: mystery satellite?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]|. [e-mail] (jim jaworski) writes:
|.
|.Are you using a satellite tracking program to confirm when HST (Hubble)
|.will pass over your location?  There is an excellent program that uses
|.Keplarian Data that is updated weekly on rec.radio.amateur.misc if you
|.have access to it.  The program is called PC-Track 2.14 and is available
|.on the Simtel 2.0 CD-ROM.
|.
|.Recently while walking to the grocery store, I saw a bright star like
|.object in the night sky.  When I was on the way TO the store this

|.star-sized light was in the western sky, about 14 deg. elev.  A few hours
|.later, about 6 hours, I saw the same thing, only this time it was in the
|.eastern side of the sky.  Do you know what this could be?  Is it Hubble?
|.It's easy to describe because its the brightest star/satellite out there.
|.
|.Jim
|.
|[e-mail]
|.The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

You may have seen the Mir space station (the largest artificial
satellite up there, not Hubble). It has been making evening
twilight appearances in Montana and points north. I don't believe
Hubble rises above your horizon at all.

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 23:22:42 GMT
From: Dick Edgar <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hello,
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
>Thank you.
>Joyce

It's extremely stable chemically, unlike silver and copper.  If you expose
copper to the salt air in Florida (or New York, cf. the Statue of Liberty),
it turns green, with who knows what effects on the mechanical and electrical
properties.

---------
Richard J. Edgar  ([e-mail])
University of Wisconsin--Madison, Department of Physics
"It all depends, of course, upon whether or not it
depends or not, of course, if you take my meaning"

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 93 00:02:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper? ...

Uses gold in the satellites for *what*?  There is more than one application
for gold in such things; it would help to know which one you're curious about.
Please be more specific.

If you're thinking of it in electrical connectors and such, which the part
about resistivity suggests, it's because gold doesn't form an oxide film
on its surface.  Oxide films (and such) are the bane of connector and
switch designers.  Even good-quality commercial connectors and switches
routinely have their contacts gold-plated (although the gold layer is
very thin).
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 23:22:16 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 10 Mar 93 16:43:57 +0600, [e-mail] said:

J> Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
J> third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.

Gold doesn't tarnish.  Silver and copper do.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 22:11:08 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa and plans

      >> Allen S.
   > Stein S.

      >> My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining
      >> space economy.
      ...
      >> Since the new system will be far larger and provide more and better
      >> jobs it seems a good trade. Do you agree?

   > Yes, I do, _if_ you are right. Problem is you seem to want to
   > dismantle the existing system, which is working, however poorly,
   > in favour of an as yet unrealised dream.

Can we get a definition of 'working' here?  It seems to me that what
has been 'working' best around NASA, despite the best efforts of
very dedicated and intelligent people, is the prevention of the
realization of the dream.  Any dream.

Besides, if NASA just got out of the way of private space operations,
it wouldn't just 'end', it would 'lose market share'.  Like Sears has
to Wal-Mart.

   > ...and then you have to train a new group and recover
   > all the lost expertise.

Why couldn't the new group just be the displaced workers?  Did I miss
something?  I thought this was about doing space operations, using
a different organizational structure, i.e., non-centralized.

   > Recall Wales's comment on how NASA always
   > favours low current cost and high ongoing costs and think
   > about _why_ this is given how they get their funding.

The separation between NASA and how it gets it's funding is an
arbitrary one.  NASA wouldn't be NASA if it got it's funding in a
different way, so the funding problems aren't a defense; they are
a further reason for ending centralized space operations.

If it got it's money from customers, a gov. program wouldn't be
necessary.  If it got it from voluntary contributions, it wouldn't
get the complaints it does.

   > It is my
   > impression that a substantial part of the motivation for the US
   > space program is from current and future national security
   > imperatives, and no more amenable to commercial operation than
   > the US Army would be to relying on a floating pool of mercenaries for
   > manpower.

Big difference here.  Armies destroy, wheras what I think we want the
space program to do is create.  If a self-sustaining commercial space
civilzation is the goal, then commercial operations are exactly the
way to go.  A self-sustaining system implies economic concerns, which
NASA has never had, judging from the way it operates.

If a self-sustained space economy is good for national security, then
NASA should be phased out NOW, as it is not doing nearly what could
be done to create one.

Are you talking about developing weapons?  Fine, that's what NASA is
good for.  But Armies buy their jeeps from private companies; why
can't NASA leave the commercial operations market alone?

      >> The current system is making space more
      >> expensive. It is hindering development for all so that a few can
      >> keep their jobs.

      >> It would be like preventing Ford from building cars because we want
      >> to preserve a few well paying buggy whip makers.

   > No, it's like shutting down all the horse carriage makers and horse
   > breeders because some crazy guy thinks he can build an automobile.
   > We still haven't seen if the DC is a Ford or a Stanley.

Allen's analogy is perfect, if we are talking about ending NASA's
de facto monopoly on space operations.  It's exactly why the 'jobs
argument' has always been lacking.

In fact, there are still horse breeders and buggy makers.  But, they
are now a luxury, just as knowledge-for-knowledge's-sake always was.
Also, the buggy and whip makers weren't gov. programs.  It sounds, Stein,
like maybe you see the world through centralized-colored glasses :-)
Knowledge for the sake of making life better has always been a Good Thing,
but NASA has flopped on this in a big way, since they don't allow
the private market to best utilize the knowledge, as well as ignoring
critical areas of knowledge necessary commercial operations.

I thought NASA's job was to develop technology and do space science.
I realize there is some overlap here, but what good is developing
and learning if they don't give (or sell) it to the private market,
and allow it to better our lives?

Indeed, given the amount of resources available for a commercial space
economy, we could better afford the luxuries that NASA represents, if
we got NASA out of commercial operations.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 22:03:15 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>.... There have been a
>number of classified programs working on SSTO over the past 12 years.
>Two in particular called Science Dawn and Have Region produced detailed
>designs and even prototype structures.

Do you have a citation to articles on this in the open literature?

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 09:57:59 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

Some good comments about planning, which deserve expansion &
modification.

JPL's Ron Baalke:
>>The Grand Plan for exploring the solar system is a simple four step process:
>>
>>    1. Flyby
>>    2. Orbiter
>>    3. Unmanned Landing
>>    4. Manned Landing

>What's step 5?  Or is one manned landing the end of exploration for any
>planet?

I'll say this even stronger than Henry.  Step (4) is an utterly stupid
end goal, suitable for only the most idiotic astronaut groupies.  Very
difficult to believe this crap came from my old employer JPL.  The
recent layoffs must have really put them in a strange mood, ready
to surrender to whatever happens to be the current popular fad.

Two long term goals should be to develop _competitive industries_
using both planets and planetoids, and an even longer term plan the
settlement of same.  Astronaut should be used if/when necessary,
but should not be considered the central goal of the space program.
Short term goals should remain scientific, with an eye on the
long-term goals (eg prospecting).

>What are the priorities for the various steps on the various planets?
>Is there some rational reason, for example, why we continue to spend
>billions on the outer planets when our own Moon -- closer, easier, and
>of far more near-term significance to spaceflight -- remains mostly
>unexplored?

I'd extend this by pointing out that the Apollo-Amor asteroids and
Jupiter-family comets are also major potential targets for initial large
scale space development, and are even less explored than the Moon.  Mars
unlike the Moon and major potential for self-sufficient settlements.
In terms of near-term "pure" science, all these bodies are important
in various ways, as are the gas giants.

And I agree with Henry that steps 2 and 3 need more detail.  Most
important for JPL, the priority of pure science vs. gathering
knowledge for long-term space development ("prospecting") needs to
be discussed and a consensus reached, instead of each camp living
in its own little world and ignoring the others.

While exploration should be pursued in the context of long-term
space development, we should not make the serious mistake of
laying out a narrow long-term plan and following it.  We need
to have many different long-term scenarios and visions and pursue
space exploration on a broad front; the results of that exploration
and future technology development will point out which areas of
space are most fruitful to develop.

>As a case in point, if you are serious about step 4 being part of the
>process of planetary exploration, it is clear that we need better data
>on the medical effects of long-term free fall and low gravity, because
>manned missions even in the inner solar system will be lengthy.  Since
>"long term" means years, and we're going to need more than one test
>run to get detailed information, a biomedical space station is clearly
>a vital long-lead item for planetary exploration,

A reasonable premise, but neither SSF nor Mir gives us any data
on lunar or Martian gravity levels.  Even the microgravity data
will be bad -- a small sample of uncommonly healthy people in
the very uncharacteristic radiation environment of LEO.  A much
better and much cheaper source for this data is what one wag has
dubbed "LabRatSat", a variable-gravity bolo LDEF which would fly
in high earth orbits characteristic of the lunar and Martian
transit radiation environments.  It is utterly stupid to
justify $100 billion astronaut missions for the sake of future $100
billion missions, ad nauseum with little practical
application or relevence to the rest of space industry, which for
both military and commerce is automated.

Just as stupid as astronaut worship is this JPL "Grand Plan" which
is a Grand Formula for getting more of its employees laid off in
the future.  As long as the users and explorers and promoters of space
are mostly hubristic jerks sitting in their own corner thinking
their plans are all-important, and they don't need to work together
with anybody else, and they don't need to adapt to new technologies
and try to make their operations low-cost, we're going to continue
to get these stupid unworkable pieces of crap called "Grand Plans".


Nick Szabo                    [e-mail]
--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 93 01:27:29 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>...  Henry's emphasis is more towards the Moon.  My preference
>is more towards the balance across the entire solar system.

No missions to the Moon of any kind for two decades is "balance"?!?
(Especially when there are still no plans for any...)
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 00:58:02 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on sun synchronous orbits
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
|
|In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|   The Earth is not a perfect sphere, and this means that orbits around it
|   are not simple Keplerian orbits.
|
|Is this an artifact of the 'oblate-ness' (i.e. equatorial bulge) or
|the non-uniform density (i.e. mascons)?
|
The motion of the orbital nodes which makes sun-synchronous orbits
possible is due mostly from the oblateness of the earth with a
tiny amount from the sun and the moon.

|I suspect we would need to know a lot about the gravity field around a
|body before we could compute a Sun-synch orbit.  This might mean
|sending something like Mars Observer into such an orbit at Mars is
|beyond our current data.  (Hmm, unless the Pioneer/Viking orbiters
|told us what we need to know...  Which they probably would because
|such information is useful science in its own right, yes?)
|
Mar's oblateness was well known before Pioneer and Viking from
dynamical reasoning from its rotation. And Mars has two moons
that are fairly close to the planet and are strongly affected
by the oblateness.

|Can sun-sychnronous orbits have arbitary periods?  As a corollary, is
|there such a thing as a geo-synch sun-synch orbit? (Sun-synch implies
|1deg/day drift w.r.t. the fixed stars, but my 3d visualisation is not
|up to this one!)

Near a minumum height orbit the inclination has to be around 98 degrees
and must increase as the height increases until it gets to about
5000 km when the inclination must be 180 degrees. Geosynchronous
orbits are at a height of 35800 km above earth's equator.

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail]) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 93 23:04:33 GMT
From: Bob Pendleton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rocket Propulsion
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):

> Ahem, Goddard didn't invent rocket propulsion, some Chinese guy about
> 2,000 years ago did.

Ahem yourself. :- Look at the lowly squid and you see a biological
rocket. Mother Nature beat man to the rocket by mega (if not giga)
years.


                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
[e-mail]              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 09:28:43 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet Energia: Available for Commercial Use?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I should add that the Russians are indeed seriously offering
their commercial-sized launchers, Soyuz (Progress) and Proton
(Krunichev).  Proton has one contract to launch an Inmarsat for
$35 million, I understand.  This is a significant discount over
competitor Ariane 4.  Proton has also signed up Lockheed to
market its launches in the U.S., and is a leading candidate to
launch the bulk of the 66 satellite Iridium phone cell network.

Unfortuneately Progress refuses, apparently from naivete or pride,
to offer a discount and thus has received no orders.  Furthermore,
dominant elements in the U.S. space industry have used various
regulations as barriers to the purchase of Russian launch services.
Worse, both Krunichev and Progress lack accounting methods with
which to determine their own launch costs.  No ones knows if
Krunichev is making a profit at $35 million.

If the Russian companies gets wise to capitalism and the U.S. loosens up
a bit, the Russians could take a signficant chunk of the market,
and start a price war that could cut launch prices in half.  That
means many companies in the glutted market out of business, though,
and it is probable that governments will prop up the inefficient
launch companies rather than letting the market adjust to an efficient
level.  This would be a blow, because both phone cell sats and even
moreso DBS are huge markets that could be opened up by even a modest
reduction in launch costs.

Nick Szabo                    [e-mail]
--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 19:58:10 GMT
From: Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

[e-mail] (Melinda Shore) writes:
>> And I ask you: How many people here give different weight to ideas on
>>Usenet based on the author?
>I do, often.  Over the years you come to know that certain
>people know what they're talking about, while others are
>monomaniacal crackpots.

Interesting. Especially interesting is the assumption of discrete
binary values placed on what appears (to me) to be a continuous phenomena.

Is it possible for a "monomaniacal crackpot" to relate "valid" concepts?

Is it possible for a "reputable" source to be relating "invalid" concepts?

By what standard are "valid" and "invalid" comparisons made?

>gay-related newsgroups.  This is a problem that I'd very
>much like to see go away - nobody should post unless
>they're willing and able to take responsibility for the
>contents of their articles.  Period.

But people _do_ post. Are you trying to make a "should be" a "reality"?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
[e-mail]       [e-mail]         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Join in the new game that's sweeping the country.  It's called "Bureaucracy".
Everybody stands in a circle.  The first person to do anything loses.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 1993 13:05 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>Is it possible for a "monomaniacal crackpot" to relate "valid" concepts?
>
>Is it possible for a "reputable" source to be relating "invalid" concepts?

Sure.  But it's a matter of having only so many hours in a day.
There are millions of books to read.  Why don't you read them all?
How do you choose?  Personally, I don't waste much time reading
everything by every author that I have ever heard of.  If I read a book
by an author which doesn't turn me on, I skip the other five books
that they wrote.  Should I read the other five *just in case* they
finally wrote something interesting?   No.  There are enough
interesting things to do with my life that I make no qualms about
skipping books by authors I don't care for or ignoring USENET articles
written by people who have not impressed me as often having interesting
things to say.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
[e-mail]         although I have no right to say so, having
                 been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                 have no memory at all of that stage of my
                 life." - Lewis Thomas

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 22:08:52 GMT
From: Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Melinda Shore) writes:
>Interesting. Especially interesting is the assumption of discrete
>binary values placed on what appears (to me) to be a continuous phenomena.

I would have to say that that's an incorrect assumption
about my assumptions.  Still, there are certain areas
where we know some people run into, uh, difficulties.  For
example, from experience I know that I can pretty much
throw out anything that Masataka Ohta has to say about
shared libraries, that Clayton Cramer has to say about
gay men, or that Robert Sheaffer has to say about feminism.
That doesn't mean that they don't have anything valid to
say on other topics.  Similarly, I know from experience
that people like Henry Spencer and Chris Torek are generally
correct, and their names appearing in the From: header of
a posting do lend those postings credibility.

>But people _do_ post. Are you trying to make a "should be" a "reality"?

No.  But I do believe that the dissassociation of
identities from postings naturally leads to a of a loss of
responsibility and the kind of behavior you'd expect to see
when people can say whatever they want without having to
stand behind it.  I'm all for allowing people to continue
to post things like "ALL FAGS GET AIDS AND DIE," but I'd
really like to see a name associated with those posts.  I'm
not suggesting that there should be (or could be,
obviously) a policy preventing pseudonymous posts.  There
are, however, aspects to pseudonymous posting that I,
personally, find highly problematic.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 93 01:47:13 GMT
From: Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

[e-mail] (Melinda Shore) writes:
>example, from experience I know that I can pretty much
>throw out anything that Masataka Ohta has to say about
>shared libraries, that Clayton Cramer has to say about
>gay men, or that Robert Sheaffer has to say about feminism.

Who are these people, anyway?

>That doesn't mean that they don't have anything valid to
>say on other topics.

And, of course, that means that they cannot change...in terms
of your conception of their viewpoint. This is because you
"know that you can pretty much throw out anything" that they say.

You have touched on one of the most telling problems of netters.
They encorage people to hold to unworkable ideas by establishing
reputations. You lose yours by contradicting yourself or providing
fallacious arguments, even if those are as the result of something
new that you learned. This is how people get stuck in their own desire to
be perceived as "right" by the net (in order to maintain their
'reputation')...instead of learning from their own mistakes or by
intelligent discourse.

>stand behind it.  I'm all for allowing people to continue
>to post things like "ALL FAGS GET AIDS AND DIE," but I'd
>really like to see a name associated with those posts.

But _why_? If this sentiment is something you disagree with (I'm
assuming), then why do you care who said it? What could you possibly
do with that information that would benefit anybody?
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
[e-mail]       [e-mail]         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Honest (adj.) - Someone who is secretly regarded by everyone as an enemy.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 300
------------------------------