Jump to content

mrbort

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mrbort

  1. If it was on Galaxy 15 right now it would be orders of magnitude more geostationary than the ISS Essentially Galaxy 15 is not responding to station keeping (or any sort of) commands at this point but the idea that it's winging around in geo is one that is in the media but just isn't really right. We pulled down the Two Line Elements today from space command and were looking at the drift rate. It's definitely moving around geo but pretty slowly. Operators will need to judge its movement and make sure that their station keeping is out of its way but there are a lot of "zombie" sats in geo like that right now (and likely for a long long time). I doubt that any of the geostationary sats would qualify in lat lon because of their minor station keeping corrections -- the bob and weave up and down in a minor way in orbit but on the ground it's a significant (if we're talking kms) movement of the ground track. Fun old topic resurrection
  2. So... the description of the way GPS works is completely off mechanically, physically and historically. I'd say that those who are defending it probably have a different level of physical acceptability than a professional physicist. However, I think that regardless of the discrepancies of the physical functionality of the GPS system contained in the writeup, if designed for someone for whom these devices are essentially opaque black boxes, it moves in the direction towards vague understanding of the system rather than away from it. I'd prefer a magic schoolbus type inaccuracy but I guess I can't get too worked up over it. Accuracy is important but sometimes if it's even remotely in the right direction, inaccurate becomes a relative term Edited to add: I actually like the idea behind the "move it to where your GPS says is ground zero" in a spot that could presumably accept indiscriminate camouflage. It would be interesting to watch this as it moves around... I don't think it would be a moving cache as the posted coordinates would not change and instead the cache would (in a sanctioned manner as opposed to the unintended cache drift that we sometimes see in other places) move around the WGS-84 theoretical point on the surface that corresponds to the numbers Fun, I say!
  3. I completely agree with all 10. Amazing. Nice summary Bittsen. I've contemplated the list for a while and maybe it's the egg nog but I can't add anything other than approval. And amazingly nor can I argue with anything on there. So my post is just a +1 for the quoted one I guess...
  4. Glad to hear that it's a continued success. Thanks for the PM Definitely probably better to start a new topic though as people have a tendency to not look at post dates before responding.... Hope all is well down there and I'll have to get my good buddy down there into geocaching.
  5. Agreed that this is a great idea andI definitely think it's awesome to donate the proceeds! Part of what we can do is also looking for other aggregations (in other social media) of possible balloon locations; even if one doesn't land in your neck of the woods, there is still participation possible.
  6. It's a term for searching for wifi networks by driving around... Wardriving, wikipedia
  7. Thanks very much Keystone for this illuminating reply. I guess I neglected to factor in sensitive areas when I was thinking about the shaded area. Sounds like an easy fix based on this response Good luck!
  8. CR: I think that is the case but I don't think that having a GPSr to start the hunt is a requirement for puzzle caches. I know that for mine, the GPSr would generally take you to the parking area but to find the cache, one would have to solve the puzzle. This would (I imagine) walking/driving around with a wifi capable device (iphone/smartphone, netbook, laptop, etc) looking for it to discover the correct network. Perhaps Trailgators hit the nail on its proverbial head that Groundspeak is uncomfortable with people being perceived doing this as part of the game. Not sure why that would be since they're pretty tech savvy and know that doing that can be as unobtrusive as the techniques others use to look for other caches. Instead of being cammo, this is more like datasphere GZ location. /shrug. I guess we'll have to see what the actual reason was for denial. I think the general idea is a pretty neat idea for a mystery cache though.
  9. I think it sounds cool. Assuming you're the one maintaining the wireless network (if not, I don't think this is a good idea) I think that perhaps stating that to receive the signal of the wireless network you do not have to go onto private property might help in the approval as I'm assuming that the area described by the shaded area will have private property on it. Perhaps the size of the shaded area was an issue? It shouldn't be (assuming that the actual cache location is within that 1-2 mile limit). The size of the shaded area should just be a difficulty scaling thing. Anyway, good luck!
  10. It's really not that simple. The reason I recognize the elements of historical stereotype in an image like this is because I happen to know some of the history of American racial stereotypes. Similarly I would recognize historically stereotypical images of some other ethnicities without holding that image in my mind to typify them. These mental images are not images of the ethnicity, instead they are typifications of the historical stereotypes. I don't pretend to know the intent of either the creator of the image or the poster. I was merely trying to explain why this image has prompted enough similar recognition to fuel seven pages of posts. By fuel I mean provide part of the discussion, not all of it. And when I said "en masse" earlier (to respond to Riffster), I meant a significant enough fraction of the forum community to help propel the topic to this length. Turns out I misused "en masse." My bad and thanks for pointing it out, Riffster. I'm not calling anyone racist for defending this image but instead was trying to place in context why others see it as insensitive. So if you still think I hold stereotypical views of certain ethnicities, there is probably nothing I can say to change your mind. I know what's in my mind and feel no compulsion to debate it further or justify myself. Edit: clarity.
  11. absolutely uncalled for. I find the photo insensitive for the following reasons: 1) historically, a denigrating caricature of the "lesser black man" has strongly featured prominent lips and bulging eyes. 2) while maybe unintentional, this photo perpetuates the dated and ugly mentality that the caricatures in 1) represent. This reaction has nothing to do with the subject of the caricature. I would actually find it MORE inappropriate had it been of some other, less notable black person. Portrayal of giant lips and bulging eyes are some of the most common of period racially charged illustrations. The reason that this is different than McCain as whatever that is or Arnold as an alien is that there is no historical baggage that gues with the latter two portrayals. I dislike any rebuttal to this that "people need to grow a thicker skin" etc... If something is offending people en masse, perhaps the person who posted it, if blessed with good conscience, should examine what he/she wrote. To those who try to dictate to others what should or should not be offensive: dictating to others the emotions that they should feel is insensitive at best; people feel things because they do... saying that a reaction or feeling is "wrong" is absolutely the worst type of emotional totalitarianism. I respect your disagreement with my feelings but absolutely don't respect any dictation of how anyone else should feel. This applies to the "get over it" crowd, the "grow a thicker skin" crowd among others. This may not be a popular post but I don't care; it's not okay to dictate to others how to feel about something.
  12. http://www.torahcodes.net/new/pages/top.html http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-...liability-bible The Case for Christ by a former athiest Translation, I refuse to debate this, so i'll resort to calling your argument an adjective instead. Back on topic, religous tracts don't bother me in caches. Yes, I refuse to debate this. Please strike my comments about your arguments being adjectival from the record. I want no more part of this.
  13. Huh? This is 100% my reaction to this. To add: If I find a religious tract in a cache I'll leave it unless I find it hateful (and that is completely up to me). I'll trade cleanliness and probably a little magnet for it knowing that the person who left it didn't "T: Hotwheels, L: Religious pamphlet." To me I'm enriching the cache by removing it and even further by adding the lil swag. If it's not hateful, I don't care... If it's a compassionate, loving statement by any faith or position, I'll probably think "hey this isn't for me but maybe it is for someone." Going back to the quoted section: I would have to say, with regard to the quote by Kit Fox, that as others have said, quoting something does not make it true... ever.... it's just a quote; it's asserting the truth that it was said. Also, the overwhelming majority of agnostics and atheists I know have a problem with faith because it's a difficult proposition rather than difficult change in belief system. It's extremely difficult to believe in something without any a priori, provable knowledge... Their philosophy comes not because it's self-obvious and their carefully constructed worldview of disbelief or suspension of belief would be shattered by this overwhelming truth but because faith isn't an easy logical proposition. Faith is believing in the unprovable... that's not easy, nor should it be. Whatever the faith of individuals, I respect it and hope that they lead lives positively impacting their fellow humans. We're never sure what the best way is and perhaps to some leaving tracts is what seems to be the right way... Like any other thing in which humans participate, most people intend to do right most of the time. Hopefully communication and dialogue, like others have said, will help illuminate the consequences of actions. edit: clarity Have you ever tried to disprove the Torah codes in the Bible, or any of the twenty prophesies that came true (even Nostradamus was wrong more than he was ever right)? Can you disprove the factual accounts of non-believing historians who set out to destroy Christianity with physical evidence, but ended up converting to Christianity once they saw the overwhelming truth of God. Explain how the complexity of earth could have occurred by a "big bang," or the "primordial ooze" theory. How about the "missing link" to prove that man evolved from apes? Your argument is specious. It's addressing disproving things rather than proving them. The logical threshold is not the same. I don't want to argue your faith with you as it's clear that you are comfortable with the logical or spiritual conclusions at which you've arrived. Further, I have no interest in discussing my personal faith with you in this topic or ever; my faith is mine... Allow me that. My post that you quoted was a generalization about atheists and agnostics I know and with whom I have had many discussions about their belief system. This isn't an attack on your faith; it never was. edited to add: I will not be engaging you in further discussions about the nature of faith in this topic.
  14. I wonder if something like the little containers that come in vending machines for little rings/toys/sticky hands etc. would fit this? maybe not... there might be a nice sized container that would take the abuse of washing around in an ammo can but not need to be weatherproof etc... just sorta thinking while typing here. Either way, cool sig item
  15. Huh? This is 100% my reaction to this. To add: If I find a religious tract in a cache I'll leave it unless I find it hateful (and that is completely up to me). I'll trade cleanliness and probably a little magnet for it knowing that the person who left it didn't "T: Hotwheels, L: Religious pamphlet." To me I'm enriching the cache by removing it and even further by adding the lil swag. If it's not hateful, I don't care... If it's a compassionate, loving statement by any faith or position, I'll probably think "hey this isn't for me but maybe it is for someone." Going back to the quoted section: I would have to say, with regard to the quote by Kit Fox, that as others have said, quoting something does not make it true... ever.... it's just a quote; it's asserting the truth that it was said. Also, the overwhelming majority of agnostics and atheists I know have a problem with faith because it's a difficult proposition rather than difficult change in belief system. It's extremely difficult to believe in something without any a priori, provable knowledge... Their philosophy comes not because it's self-obvious and their carefully constructed worldview of disbelief or suspension of belief would be shattered by this overwhelming truth but because faith isn't an easy logical proposition. Faith is believing in the unprovable... that's not easy, nor should it be. Whatever the faith of individuals, I respect it and hope that they lead lives positively impacting their fellow humans. We're never sure what the best way is and perhaps to some leaving tracts is what seems to be the right way... Like any other thing in which humans participate, most people intend to do right most of the time. Hopefully communication and dialogue, like others have said, will help illuminate the consequences of actions. edit: clarity
  16. I really like the carved up version I would definitely be thrilled to see that in a cache.... nice creativity!
  17. That's funny. I couldn't get a clear view of the icon after the 200... looked like two people. Nice failblog
  18. to associative thinkers, there's really no such thing as an off-topic remark. wherever a conversation goes is where it goes and is therefore on-topic. linear thinkers have a hard time with that. kay redfield jamison (loosely paraphrasing) postulates that every interesting innovation in the history of people has come about because of an associative thinker. likewise every good idea that actually gets taken from the drawing board and made to work is because of linear thinkers. Thanks flask. I have shared this position for a long time (not just on these boards) and still have a hard time understanding the zeal of the moderators of these boards for strictly enforcing topicality while turning a blind eye to incivility. I like the way conversations flow. I like the rhythm of dialogue. I dislike that I'll be warned to keep this on topic. I really am impressed that this topic has flowed in a generally mature and congenial manner. Despite (or perhaps because of -- in lieu of heavy handed closing of the topic) the fluttering "keep on topic" warnings, people have had really interesting debates about what is an appropriate inclusion in a geocache, specifically focused on religious materials. Impressive dialogue from everyone and I'm glad that I've been a part of it. Cuff me up..
  19. Sure, ignore my post #162 *sniff* ROFL sorry I had rolled up my sleeves and was engaged in the emergent posts in the topic Your post certainly influenced mine... I will bold it.
  20. I really like this post. Especially the part I bolded. It's something I wasn't really considering and adds a really interesting aspect to the discussion. Thanks.
  21. I can't tell if this is a serious response or not. If so, I don't see many pagens (sic) in this thread; I instead see many people of varying degrees of faith debating the appropriateness of religious tracts in geocaches. I've seen a Baptist minister eloquently describe the importance of place and time for proselytizing, people of faith debate what the implications of these tracts are and others who are less inclined toward receiving religious material (without much statement of particular personal affiliation) stating how they regard these tracts (depending on condition). I've also seen people attempt to place the tracts in context with other religious material. To characterize the responses in this thread as a representation of geocachers as pagans is myopic. Don't miss the forest for the trees. If the suggestion that either Christian material is inappropriate or that if Christian material is appropriate, other religious material is also appropriate suggests pagan leanings of the geocaching corps, I think that a reexamination of general principles is in order. If that means you can't geocache because non-Christians geocache then start thinking about the other things you do that involve non-Christians. As for the original question: To me (oddly since it deals with existential quantities) it boils down to swag trading as a material thing. While some things may have objective qualitative values to different people, the quantitative value seems to be the guiding factor. For example a Buddha sculpture is much more difficult to make materially than a photocopy of a Christian tract. In the same vein, an ornate crucifix is much more materially substantive than a photocopy of the teachings of the divine Buddha (the two are meant as an example of philosophic distinction rather than any comparison of any intrinsic philosophy).
  22. OK, to quote you in full context: Wow! Really!?! 80% are micros, huh? I had no idea. No wonder you wanted to bump everything but nanos up a notch! What percent of micros are actually nanos? As to the topic at hand... just a regular. I have a 30 gallon Rubbermaid container out there... that is a large. (or a Jumbo, if you will) Those are some pretty arbitrary numbers that you are using. Roughly 1/3 of my finds are micros. Most are smalls. Regulars... about the same as micros. Your area and your stats might be different, of course, but I seriously doubt that they are that much different. I just don't see an issue here. Sorry. As I said. I used arbitrary numbers. I don't understand what your issue is after that. Well, arbitrary numbers are either completely arbitrary and at that point why would you post any numbers? First case: arbitrary is arbitrary... completely random. second case: I've often seen "arbitrary numbers" used as "generally characteristic numbers" as a vaguely representative number that is no more than an estimation. What you posted would seem to be in the second category since posting purely arbitrary numbers is not only illogical but also nonsensical but posting "arbitrary" numbers as a proxy for an estimation is not well-worded but reasonable. I would guess that acquaintance of Chad was reading your post as a guess/estimation rather than a completely arbitrary number (i.e. 12321.9977123 e12312, 2342e-14 etc.). If you're actually using arbitrary numbers, you should probably examine your model (generally it's something that should mimic realistic behavior even in the absence of real data). edited to delineate the cases.
  23. No, don't twist my words or the meaning behind them, please. I did not say I would champion someone who muggled a cache with deliberately misleading information, I said I would not begrudge them. In other words, I would empathize with them. I would see why they did it and, though not forgive them, I would not begrudge them. I meant what I said and I said what I meant. ~(in my best Horton voice)~ Okay so empathy does not equal approval. That's fine with me. If I misinterpreted or even misunderstood your statement please don't mis-characterize it as twisting.
  24. I would begrudge anyone who muggles a cache intentionally for whatever reason. Soft coordinates seem to be at the exceedingly benign end of a rationale spectrum for any muggling. To suggest that it's okay to muggle a cache for any reason is irresponsible and supersedes in level of disrespect, intentional posting of bad coordinates. I would never condone posting soft coordinates; posting good coordinates are a cornerstone of the game. However, I would be even more loath to suggest vigilantism against caches that are posted with this technique. Better ignore than cause harm. As I said, I would ignore it. But what you also said (the part to which I take exception) is that you would be there with a tacit thumbs up for anyone who removed a cache intentionally based on the fact that the cache was placed with soft coordinates. That's not okay either and is tantamount to being an accessory to the action.
  25. I would begrudge anyone who muggles a cache intentionally for whatever reason. Soft coordinates seem to be at the exceedingly benign end of a rationale spectrum for any muggling. To suggest that it's okay to muggle a cache for any reason is irresponsible and supersedes in level of disrespect, intentional posting of bad coordinates. I would never condone posting soft coordinates; posting good coordinates are a cornerstone of the game. However, I would be even more loath to suggest vigilantism against caches that are posted with this technique. Better ignore than cause harm.
×
×
  • Create New...