Active Users:314 Time:03/05/2024 04:52:04 AM
Regrettably not Isaac Send a noteboard - 03/02/2010 02:31:56 PM
I tell normal jokes too, and quick quips, but my personal ones or adaptations tend to be revolve around saying things that make a lot of sense when phrased right and are only viewed as absurd about 2-5 seconds after the punchline is delivered. If I'm telling the one about how I don't believe in pink unicorns, leprechauns, and eskimos it really loses all it's flavor if the subsequent delivery doesn't highlight the reasons why laughing at someone for not believing in eskimos is alternatively no more logical than not believing in pink unicorns and leprechauns. If the jokes delivery doesn't point out the fundamental flaw of 'everybody knows' while at the same time showing the abusrdity of viewing the other two as an absurdity it fails. The rational agnostic sort realizes that there sis nothing absurd about the idea of a horse with a pink coat and horn evolving somewhere, the sort who tend to believe in the supernatural, the absurdity of viewing one as entirely believable but the leprechaun as simple nonsense. Proper delivery takes well over a minute and like a lot of my quips it's designed to relax the audience and shake up their thinking if they're showing signs of mental rigidity. Spoils the whole thing when someone either just says 'I don't believe in pink unicorns, leprechauns, or eskimos' for the quick laugh and tends to be utterly dreadful and perverted of the point when they try to deliver the whole thing.

Yeah, that makes sense; I wasn't really sure what you had beyond the cupola and scope, but once you start adding computers and stuff the price mounts fast, especially if you throw in your own power source (come to that, most motorized SCTs are intended to run on car batteries, which typically entails a car, though it needn't. )


We had the whole package, telescope wired to the sky program on the computer, so you could just click object and it would rotate the telescope, but not the dome, for some reason the dome would only rotate maybe one time out of ten, had to press the manual control which was a serious pain since it wasn'treadily accessible. Regardless, this is why I'd guess the scope was 10-20k inspite of a 120k budget.

Sounds like we're of a mind there; if I NEED the Nexstars computer, nice as it is, I probably need to NOT drop the cash for an 8+" SCT until I know wtf I'm doing. The Nexstars are NICE, don't get me wrong; the alignment process is almost idiot proof and very quick, and then it's basically point and click. But since I wanted one myself (someday... ) I remember the price on the old C-8 with and without computer VERY well:


Nioce things is how cheap computers have gotten, but I just don't like them. For one thing all that automation resulted in me forgeting half the astronomy I knew. For serious science, speed and accuracy say use computers, but otherwise? I just get this image of fifty years from now someone deciding to go fishing, heads down to the beach with their 'Seamaster 10000', sets it down, pushes a button, and proceeds to play video games while it shoots out laser and radars to locate a fish then deploys it's automatic harpoon, reels it in, and dumps it into a basket for you. 'I got a 5 footer today' says the person with a dubious claim of being a fisherman.

I've never used it before, and if I'm going to experiment with it to learn the risks I'm not going to start with hundreds or thousands of dollars. I believe my mother finally did get her money back because she got buyer protection--but she spent a few months arguing with the seller, the post office AND EBay. For $20. It was so much fun it soured her on EBay for good; I prefer not to have the same experience with an order of magnitude or more money.


I just hear so many good things about it that I feel obliged to recommend it, but I've only used it a few times, usually with someone else's assistance. For just the sort of reasons you mentioned, I prefer to buy items in person, and failing that brand new from a fully established company. Buy a telescope online from celestron or meade, and you know it will arrive safe, or will be fairly easy to have returned and replaced. Same as buying things out of reputable catalogs like I do for seeds.

Might be, but I'm not sure how weight bearing stacks up, and most things I've seen made out of fiberglass age badly, especially when exposed to the elements. There's plenty of 16th century antique furniture out there (all things considered ;) but I don't know how much fiberglass stuff made today will be around in 2510.


Not sure how long fiberglass kicks around, certainly seen it in decent shape after decades. I think it's one of those materials that sunlight screws up, which shouldn't be any issue for telescopes... but I actually meant to say carbon fiber not fiberglass, sorry ;) Carbon fiber makes good tripods.


It does seem that way to me, but if you screw up one of those mirrors you've got an expensive piece of junk. Maybe some or all of the retailers (though most of them seem to be direct mail) offer replacement mirrors, but I'd want to be very sure of that, and that it wouldn't be thousands more, before I attempted something like that. I mean, think about it: If nearly all the precision equipment is the mirrors and the rest is basically just polished sheet metal, where would you expect most of the expense to lie?


Oh, it's all in the optics, unless I missed a piece I'd guess the whole housing probably runs around a hundred bucks. So, definetly would want to by optics with a warranty on them if one's around that offers that.

I'm typing on a desktop right now, haven't bought a laptop in years, but I've owned two and I was doing a lot of traveling at the time so it was worth it. Now, not really expecting to travel much, so I'd agree.

Yeah, I'm pretty much at home when on the computer, too, and when I'm not home the only NEED I have for one is to go online (which I don't really need anyway, I just enjoy it. )


I've grown increasingly spartan in my travel tendencies the last few years, basically as an extension of that concept. I used to pack everything but the kitchen sink.

I've still got a 286 myself; my dad got it for me for Christmas one year as an upgrade over my folks original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) PC. Took me forever to realize it had an internal hard drive (20 whole megs, man!) :P I used to sneer at people who couldn't write a decent batch file; I still know how to do it in DOS, but all the commands have been replaced by point and grunt (and pray Explorer doesn't decide to crash. )


I never really made the jump from DOS to the other things. I skipped windows 3.x entirely and going from GW an Q Basic to V-Basic, well, I never got it down. C:\DOS, C:\DOS\RUN, RUN\DOS\RUN. Still funny, but other than the basic html scripts necessary to play with the font types and colors I never have gotten use dot nay of the modern gibberish, I feel proud just being able to configure my email to download directly into my mail program.

To be honest the only Bushnell telescope I've dealt with was our baby refractor that was STRICTLY a spotting scope. People would come in all the time, see the $100 pricetag and think they were set, and I'd have to tell them, "Yeah, if you just want to watch birds or your neighbors wife, that's the thing; if you want to do astronomy let me show you this 3" altazimuth reflector for about $50 more, or better yet this 4.5" equatorial reflector if it's not too steep. " It was still the cheap weak sister of what Celestron and Meade made. I've heard they make decent binoculars, but my impression is the same thing is true of telescopic sights as telescopes in general: You get what you pay for (if you know your stuff) and you're generally better off going with a specialist dedicated to performance than a generalist dedicated to volume sales.


I don't want to savage Bushnell too much, the main complaint I had was fairly specific, a lot of scopes are designed for huntings rifles but don't handle up well when mounted to military equipment, wasn't just them, a lot of our prefered optics might work on a m4 or m16 but would get damaged by the recoil and vibration of the heavier machineguns, some of the RFI stuff we got couldn't even function on the standard rifles. Lot of the stuff we got during the early years of the WoT was non-ideal, but then RFI (Rapid Field Issue) tends to result in that. They are certainly a well-known company and in this particular type of business reputations aren't acquired as fads, but as a result of years of producing high-quality goods, so I'm probably being unfair.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Reply to message
Biggest and Brightest Full Moon of 2010 Tonight - 29/01/2010 06:22:59 PM 751 Views
you will have to tell me how it was we are suppossed to get rain all night *NM* - 29/01/2010 07:18:13 PM 262 Views
Thank you. that was very interesting. *NM* - 30/01/2010 12:40:18 AM 337 Views
I was out tonight - 30/01/2010 12:52:05 AM 463 Views
Huh. I was talking to people tonight about how big it was. - 30/01/2010 01:55:44 AM 408 Views
The illusion always seemed pretty simply explained to me. - 30/01/2010 03:02:05 AM 418 Views
Re: The illusion always seemed pretty simply explained to me. - 31/01/2010 02:08:37 AM 416 Views
Quite so. - 31/01/2010 05:01:55 AM 398 Views
I see it!!! - 30/01/2010 08:48:58 PM 673 Views
I was, naturally, interested in seeing it. Clouds thwarted my plans. - 30/01/2010 10:24:16 PM 607 Views
Re: I was, naturally, interested in seeing it. Clouds thwarted my plans. - 31/01/2010 02:10:30 AM 404 Views
You'd be suprised how much you can see with "ordinary" binoculars. - 31/01/2010 05:11:00 AM 389 Views
Yeah. They're just 10x50's. - 02/02/2010 04:14:00 AM 358 Views
Likely wise, though it also reminds me of one those expensive addons I mentioned. - 31/01/2010 05:16:56 AM 538 Views
Celestron sells a stereo bino set for $200 - 31/01/2010 07:38:33 AM 523 Views
Heh, it may have actually gone DOWN, I believe. - 31/01/2010 12:49:15 PM 576 Views
Anemiconomy, I'll have to steal that - 31/01/2010 02:03:12 PM 432 Views
Stealing my one liners is all the rage these days. - 31/01/2010 02:38:54 PM 478 Views
Theft is flattery - 31/01/2010 06:20:31 PM 561 Views
Only when confessed and not contorted into caricature. - 01/02/2010 06:52:30 AM 490 Views
I feel your pain, people steal my jokes than give wretched deliveries - 01/02/2010 09:04:25 AM 586 Views
At least they retain rather than perverting the sense. - 03/02/2010 06:44:37 AM 996 Views
Regrettably not - 03/02/2010 02:31:56 PM 493 Views
Re: Regrettably not - 15/02/2010 08:54:34 AM 442 Views
The two of you old farts should really jump ship to Slackware - 15/02/2010 02:59:47 PM 391 Views
I should have moondog give me a Linux tutorial one day is what I SHOULD do. - 15/02/2010 03:03:56 PM 381 Views
You really can do it on your own. Trust me; I did. - 16/02/2010 12:50:30 AM 366 Views
If I ever find a moment to breathe, I may give it a shot. - 19/02/2010 03:31:45 AM 395 Views
Yep, it looked pretty fat! *NM* - 31/01/2010 01:29:16 AM 202 Views
"Fat" or "phat"? - 31/01/2010 05:16:33 AM 492 Views

Reply to Message