HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Weight of Earth?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:34:57 GMT

In article <9204171508.AA09577@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> William R Thompson <wthomps@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>In article <12990037@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> you write:
>>
>>Anyone got any other ideas on how to determine the WEIGHT of the earth?
>
>Actually the weight of the earth cannot be calculated because our
>definition of "weight" is based on the gravitational attraction of
>a body on the surface of the earth.  Similarly, weight on other
> ...
>the earth really has no physical meaning.
>
>--William R. Thompson 

But are you not still begging the question?  How much would the earth weigh
in lbs if weighed on a scale on say, the earth? on the sun? on Jupiter? on
the moon?  If you can tell me that I, a physical object, weigh x lbs on earth,
and x/y on the moon, and  x*z on Jupiter, you should be able to tell me the
same for any other arbitrary object including good old terra. 

Bob


--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@quarky.jpl.nasa.gov         - standard disclaimers apply -
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: sci.astro.urgent?
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

The proposed group sci.astro.urgent was discussed briefly recently.
Someone rightly pointed out that moderation would add hours or days
onto the time for postings to get out.  I keep seeing aurora alerts
about 12-24 hours too late anyway, so I can well see the point.

How about a moderated group with a moderator who authorises certain
people to post who can reasonably expect to have some urgent
information.  The solar bulletin postings are an example.  Someone at
a large observatory can post IAU bulletins as well.  This keeps random
junk off the group without adding any delay to the postings.  And the
amateur who notices that A-Centuri is going supernova would be better
off calling the IAU than posting to sci.astro.urgent anyway.

I believe that a similar system is used for the news.answers group.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Save Palomar Observatory!
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:32:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsisrv.1992Apr8.143235.8410
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI

In article <1992Apr7.114445.6150@mlfarm.com> ron@mlfarm.com (Ronald Florence) writes:
>Phil Fischer writes:
>
>   At the risk of incurring a lot of wrath, perhaps astronomers should
>   begin to accept that telecopes should not be expected to last 100
>   years or more. The technology since Hale was built has changed
>   radically, and telescopes like Hale were not designed for modern
>   instrumentation (i.e. CCD's).  
>
>
>The 200 is an extremely productive instrument, and could remain so for
>a long time if the site is not jeopardized by unnecessary light
>pollution.  Great telescopes don't have to be a throw-away technology. 
>-- 
>
>				Ronald Florence
>				ron@mlfarm.com

Moreover, it is worth repeating that the 200 inch is *NOT* the only telescope
at Palomar. There are two other major research instruments there, including
one of (if not the) world's largest Schmidt, currently engaged in an important
survey project.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gliba@scivax.stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: More Nova Cygni News
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:27:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


   Nova Cygni 1992 is definately fading in brightness. After staying
around 7.4 magnitude for most of this month, it has faded considerably
since April 11th. On the 11th it was 7.4, then it droped to 7.7 a couple
days later; this morning it was at 7.9 magn. It can still be seen fairly
easy with my 8x50 binoculars on a camera tripod, but I may have to switch
to a larger aperature telescope soon.
							Clear Skies,

							George Gliba
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: paulb@circus.Camex.COM (Paul Braiman)
Subject: C90 Telescope for sale
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:37:53 EDT

I have a three year old C90 telescope in excellent condition for sale.  It
comes with a large accessory adapter so you can use 1.25" eyepieces and
also comes with a T-ring adapter for an Olympus camera.  You can buy an
adapter for other cameras for about $15 from places like F.C. Meischner,
Orion, Tuthill, etc.  It's a great scope for casual astronomy and backwoods
birdwatching being small, light, yet powerful (1000mm f11).

I'd like to get $350.00 or B.O. for it.  If you're interested, send mail to
the address below, or call.

Clears skies and sunny days-

-Paul
===============================================================================
paulb@camex.com   | "The willing, Destiny guides them; the unwilling, Destiny
617-426-7550 x462 |  drags them." -Seneca the Younger (c. 4 B.C.-A.D. 65)
===============================================================================


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shape and Size of Universe
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Apr15.162015.9515@rice.edu>, dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk) writes...
>In article <kumihhINN6dt@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes:
>|> 
>|> 1.  What is the most widely accepted theory of the shape of the
>|> 	universe?  A four-dimensional hypersphere? 
>|> 
> 
>Well, let's say for now that it's a four-D hypersurface.  The actual form 
>of the surface depends on the value of cosmological constants that are 
>currently the source of debate.  If this cosmological parameter is greater
>than some value, yes, the universe is a hypersphere and will eventually collapse.
>If it is equal to the critical value, the universe is a hyperplane.  If it is
>less than the critical value, the hypersurface is kind of like a saddle.  Neither
>of the latter two will collapse into a 'big crunch'. 
> 

This answer is OK, but not strictly true.  The shape of spacetime is determined
by the matter in it.  Consequently it is not a hypersphere or any other simple
shape.  It is full of wierd objects such as black holes which cause
singularities (with or without an event horizon - still an open question), and 
dense objects which just curve space alot.  

We don't know whether the universe is open ("hyperplane") or closed
("hypersphere").  But if spacetime were really a hyperplane, then there would 
be no gravity.  So be careful in your choice of words.

-Scott

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.electronics
From: degraaf@davidsys.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Fluorite scope for sale
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:49:26 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA

VERY VERY GOOD TELECOPE FOR SALE

7cm f:8 Celestron/Vixen FLOURITE APOCHROMATIC refractor
   No central obstruction (unlike Questar)- higher contrast.
   Better color corrected than ordinary refractors.
Quad eyepiece holder and right angle mirror
   No more dropping your eyepieces in the dark!
Celestron 28mm Erfle eyepiece (20X and wide field of view)
Meade 16.8mm orthoscopic eyepiece (33+X)
Meade 7mm orthoscopic eyepiece (80X)
   Yeah, you can go higher with even smaller eyepieces and/or a Barlow.
6x35 finder
   Even 560mm with 28mm (20X) needs a finder.
RSuper PolarisS equatorial mount and tripod
   Flexicables on both axes.
RA drive with inverter
   A bunch of AA cells drives this for a weekend.
Polar finder with reticle
   A nice luxury.
Two piggyback mounts (one with dual axis slow motion)
   Mount your camera or camcorder without irritation.
Accessory plate
   ...for the lunatic fringe
Uranometria 2000 (volume one)
   A detailed road map, pretty enough for a coffee table.

Asking $1,500 (A new Celestron SP-C102F is over $2100!)

Bruce (408)244-8146 San Jose, California
From: dave@arcturus.as.arizona.edu (David A. Harvey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Fluorite scope for sale
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:00:38 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

>
>	I had one of these for several years, it is indeed a very good
>scope. During '88 Mars watch, I had one mounted on my C-8, the 70mm
>fluorite gave better views easily! With the super Polaris mount it is
>very stable and yet portable.
>
>	I still have a 80mm Vixen Fluorite, and enjoy it often. I sold
>a 102F to help gather a down payment for a house 6 years ago, it was a
>great telescope! Vixen Fluorotes are lighter weight than Takahashis but
>every bit their equal opticaly.
>
>	The 70mm is no longer available in the U.S. as far as I know. Mine
>would blow a Questar out of the water easily resolution wise. The f/8
>vs f/15 of the Questar allowed a nice wide field as well.
>
>	Whoever gets one of these will be the lucky owner of a rare piece.
>I asked a guy at Orion, he said if they were available they would be around
>$2k.
>
>
>	Jack Zeiders
>	

A 70mm refractor "blowing a Questar out of the water"???!!!!?   

I don't think so Jack.  Unless you got a really bad Questar - the Questar's
has an aperture advantage of 27% over your 70mm job (not counting the 
central obstruction) and just and that alone says it will have better 
resolution than the 70mm.

Have you ever looked through a Questar?  As an owner of a 3.5" Questar and a 
4" Astrophysics refractor - both of which have been tested by Master Opticians -
and both test out better than a 8th wave at the wavefront - the images are
comparable (resolution wise).  The 4" has brighter images and less light 
being pumped into the secondary difraction ring but they are nearly the
same resolution wise.

Your 70mm can not be "better" than a good Questar.  I'll put my 3.5" Questar 
up against your 70mm Vixen any day - bets are my Questar will "blow your
refractor out of the water."

Dave Harvey
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 

Internet: dave@as.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky sci.astro:5053 sci.space:7569 news.answers:1072
From: morgan@john-parker.ICS.UCI.EDU (Tim Morgan)
Subject: Focal reducers with Meade F/6.3 telescopes
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Reply-To: morgan@paris.ICS.UCI.EDU
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:56:55 GMT

Has anyone had experience with using focal reducers (other than the
Celestron reducer/corrector, which I know from Sky & Telescope works
well) with Meade F/6.3 telescopes?  I'm particularly interested in
good or bad experiences the Lumicon Giant Easy Guider used in conjunction
with a 10" F/6.3, but other reducers and/or the 8" F/6.3's might be
indicative as well.

Alternately, if someone in the Orange County, CA, area has a 10" F/6.3
and would like to try it, I can supply the Giant Easy Guider and
a camera.

I'll be glad to summarize any responses if there's interest.

Tim Morgan
UC Irvine ICS Dept.
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Meade SCT telescope guarantee testimonial
Summary: finally a good one
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:37:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr15.183734.2150
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


This subject has been thankfully, dormant, for a while now. But I just
got back my Meade 8 inch SCT from them after its third trip back.

And this time they appear to have succeeded.

I've examined the optics in my lab by several tests, including 
Foucault and  Ronchi tests and just looking at the diffraction patterns
of an artificial star (expanded HeNe) and it appears to be somewhere between
"diffraction limited" (i.e quarter wave) and "perfect". 

One must note that on an SCT that spherical aberration is a somewhat
nebulous affair as it varies as one slide the eyepiece in and out.
As I am looking at a star somewhat closer than infinity, I have to move
the eyepiece in quite a bit to cancel the s.a. When I move it in the
amount I calculate I should (5 inches), based on the normal eyepiece position
when used with the supplied  2 inch star diagonal, it appears that
the s.a. is indeed gone. The Ronchi and Focault tests agree here. I'm quite sure
that it can be gotten rid of entirely by sliding the eyepiece in and out
an inch or so. There is no astigmatism and there are no perceptible zones,
which were ghastly in my previous set of optics. This scope is far better than
**any** of the SCTs tested by Sky and Telescope.

Also, they seem to have a better antireflection coating than before on
the corrector plate.

I can say now that they have quite satisfied me as to optical quality.
AS I have always felt that the mechanical aspects of the scope were as
good as could be expected in a portable scope, I'm very satisfied.
The bottom line is that if you hold their feet to the fire they will
get you a good scope. 


Now if the outside air would just do as well!

Doug McDonald
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 03 April
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date:  4 Apr 92 08:28:43 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 094, 04/03/92
10.7 FLUX=159.8  90-AVG=203        SSN=100      BKI=1145 4543  BAI=024
BGND-XRAY=B7.9     FLU1=2.8E+05  FLU10=1.2E+04  PKI=1244 5543  PAI=027
  BOU-DEV=005,008,042,076,066,081,040,024   DEV-AVG=042 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= C2.7   @ 0459UT    XRAY-MIN= B6.5   @ 0212UT   XRAY-AVG= C1.1
NEUTN-MAX= +001%  @ 2335UT   NEUTN-MIN= -006%  @ 0845UT  NEUTN-AVG= -0.4%
  PCA-MAX= +0.3DB @ 1310UT     PCA-MIN= -0.2DB @ 1535UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55286NT @ 0707UT   BOUTF-MIN=55220NT @ 1653UT  BOUTF-AVG=55263NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+125NT@ 1850UT   GOES7-MIN=N:-048NT@ 1346UT  G7-AVG=+073,+055,+003
GOES6-MAX=P:+133NT@ 2024UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-026NT@ 2139UT  G6-AVG=+081,+021,+037
 FLUXFCST=STD:155,150,150;SESC:155,150,150 BAI/PAI-FCST=020,015,015/035,020,015
    KFCST=3335 4332 3335 4332  27DAY-AP=008,011   27DAY-KP=1112 2322 3322 3321
 WARNINGS=*AURMIDWCH
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
Xref: sparky sci.astro:4853 sci.space:7344
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: Canadians to save Galileo
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 01:46:02 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Santa Clara, CA - +1 408 248 9213

martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors) writes:

> OTTAWA - 1/4/92:
> At a briefing in Ottawa today, the Canadian Spice Agency announced that the  
> Canadarm will be used on a Shuttle flight on Dec 8, 1992, to snag Galileo's  
> recalcitrant antenna into the proper position.

Ya .... riiiight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis                               |UUCP:    mwallis@clubzen.UUCP
Computer Consultant, Santa Clara, CA         |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>
Xref: sparky sci.astro:4900 sci.space:7399 sci.electronics:8244
From: esf007@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Gorth)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Telescope Drive Systems.
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:50:59 GMT
Organization: abUSENET, Coventry Polytechnic, Coventry, UK

In article <1992Apr6.011453.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jdishaw@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <10192@inews.intel.com>, dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson) writes:

>It depends what you mean by open loop and closed loop systems.  Unless you
>want a fully automatic telescope (which Trueblood and Genet describe in
>their book), your system will be open loop to some extent.  Tracking
>and acquiring stars are not that difficult to have a computer.  It would
>be pretty wasteful to have a human control tracking since a human's reaction
>time is about a sixth of second.
>
>>    b) Would a DC motor with a gear reduction system be effective, or are
>>       stepper motors about the only thing that run well enough at low
>>       enough speeds to be usefull? (It seems to me that a DC motor 
>>       would have to run at a fairly high speed relative to the speed
>>       of the RA axis.)


Stepper motors would be easier to control for your computer system,  the 
interfacing is standard tech.   One of the closed loop problem you should watch 
is deadband and backlash non-linearities when using a gear system.  These
effects can cause very serious accuracy problems in this particular application
and also instability in tracking.  You could have your telescope 'hunting'
and 'limit cycling'  (look it up).  If you want highly accurate control
I believe the DC motor is the best option,  if you can afford it and have the 
right design parameters,   (damping factor,  omega-n,  etc).

However,  the stepper motor option is cheaper and easier to program, but
if your using a gear system (even one), then use CLOSED LOOP and feedback
the position and velocity from a point in the system AFTER the gearbox
Then your software will be the key to how good the system is.


Chris Grice(Gorth),,,,,,MSc  Computer Control Systems.
 


-- 
Chris Grice (Gorth).       The opinions held within are mine mine mine
                           hang on to your towel and don't become a penguin
Xref: sparky sci.astro:5050 sci.space:7567
From: jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Re: comet approaching?
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:47:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: ulkyvx.1992Apr16.084738.1
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Apr16.075357.9874@news.Hawaii.Edu>, tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

> Consider the 1978 South Atlantic blast
> that was originally believed to be an Israeli-South African nuclear test,
> or the passage of the spectacular fireball over the Rockies in 1972, or
> the 1908 Tunguska event, or... or... or...  
===========================================================================
Was the 1978 blast actually ascribed to an asteroid or some 
other astronomical object colliding with the Earth?  Are there 
references?

Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Rauch Memorial Planetarium
University of Louisville
jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Alcor Nevada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:24:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Alcor Nevada will be meeting Sunday April 12th at 5 PM at the 
Riverside Casino owned by Don Laughlin in Laughlin, Nevada.  Don 
Laughlin will be attending our meeting.  The use of cryonic 
suspension for long duration space travel will be discussed.  For 
more info call Eric Klien at (702) 255-1355.  
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca (Warren G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Shape and Size of Universe
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.024031.5155@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
jcm3r@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John Carl Martin) writes:
> In article <kumihhINN6dt@pollux.usc.edu> aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed  
Abd-Allah) writes:
> >Can anyone explain in "layman" terms the best answers we have to the
>                         ^^^^^^
> >following questions:
> >
> >1.  What is the most widely accepted theory of the shape of the
> >	universe?  A four-dimensional hypersphere? 
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Since when is 'hypersphere' a layman's term?

When applied to the universe. Hypersurfaces are N-1 dimensional surfaces 
imbedded in a N dimensional manifold. There is no reason to believe that the 
universe is imbedded in a 5-manifold at the present. Not that abuse of
terminology is a problem here. Ahmed made his questions understood and that's
what counts.

(See what happens after you get a math degree :-(. Anyone know where there is
a local chapter of nitpickers anonymous :-).

--
########################## _`|'_ ##############################################
##  Warren G. Anderson     |o o| "... for its truth does not matter, and is  ##
##  Dept. of Physics       ( ^ )  unimaginable." -J. Ashbery, The New Spirit ##
##  University of Alberta  /\-/\      (anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca)      ##
From: newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: sci.astro.urgent?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:51:06 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1588@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

>The proposed group sci.astro.urgent was discussed briefly recently.

      [deleted stuff]

>information.  The solar bulletin postings are an example.  Someone at
>a large observatory can post IAU bulletins as well.

I anticipated this problem when I saw the first posting for sci.astro.urgent.
Isn't this going to trespass onto the IAU Circular's turf?  They charge around
$100 a year for email service, I think (I don't know because I read the
ones we get here at Steward).  When people start posting these circulars
onto sci.astro.urgent --and they will --won't they violate some copyright
or other law because they've infringed upon the IAU Telegram Service's income?
What's to stop every circular from being posted --then only one person in the
astronomical community needs to subscribe to the IAU Circulars and no one
will pay for the service.

Mike Newberry

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Newberry                                Axiom Research, Inc.
Steward Observatory                          (image processing software)
University of Arizona                        P.O. Box 44162
Tucson, AZ  85721                            Tucson, AZ  85733
newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu                (602) 791-2864
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
From: dirk@spacsun.rice.edu (Dirk Valk)
Subject: Re: sci.astro.amateur?
Keywords: Yes, people DO read this field on occasion.  ;-)
Organization: Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University, Houston TX
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:25:50 GMT

I think the idea has a lot of merit.  I have no real interest in small 
telescopes or mirror-grinding at the present time.  Also, while I find
it interesting and encouraging to see the amateur observations and reports
of things like Nova Cygni, low-latitude aurorae, and meteor showers, that's 
not why I read the group.  I'm looking for discussions and information of 
a more technical nature.  Unfortunately, with the current setup if I don't 
read the group for a week I end up with 100+ articles in the queue, and 
inevitably delete them all -- thereby missing the few articles I would 
be interested in.  By the same token I douby many here would be interested
in queries about the status of the COBE processing, or a discussion of the
latest spiral density wave model, or a flame war on popular cosmogony -- all 
things I might enjoy.

It would be ridiculous, though, to micro-manage.  I think that the two 
newsgroups would give the best split -- i.e. sci.astro, and sci.astro.amateur.
Personally, I would prefer going further and having sci.astro.announce,
a moderated group for the posting of late-breaking urgent information.
-- 
: Dirk Valk             |"And if it doesn't work out,                      :
: Rice Univeristy       | There'll never be any doubt,                     :
: dirk@spacsun.rice.edu | That the pleasure was worth all the pain."       :
: Space Physics & Astro.|                         - Jimmy Buffett          :
From: richard@pemrac.space.swri.edu (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: article on SDI
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:29:51 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio

Recently there was a posting to this group covering the
latest gospel according to SDI. Everything I have ever
read on this topic leads to one conclusion: SDI is just
a high-tech jobs program. I get the feeling that SDI is
going to be the DOD's 1990s version of the fallout shelter
of the 1950s...Unfortunately, there are many who don't
see the long term damage this sort of spending does to our
economy.

R.Murphy