In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:40:47 -0500, DSK said:

It's called "the common good." The concept may have expanded
beyond reasonable boundaries, but if you deny the basic
concept, try going out in the woods and living totally on
your own.

Indeed, I'm not rejecting the proposition that it's a good idea for
taxpayers as a group rather than by individuals to bear certain costs. I'm
all in favor of the guvmint's compiling the data and preparing the charts in
the first instance. I'm asking whether there's a good reason why taxpayers
as a whole should be expected to pay the entire cost of producing and
distributing the little pieces of paper you and I use to stay out of harm's
way as we pilot our pleasure craft about on the weekend.

The problem here seems to be one of the cost of distribution.

Now, the cost of collecting the hydro data is a sunk cost. If it's
needed for the common good, or just military purposes, or whatever,
it's needed. The surveys are done and the charts are put together,
updated etc etc.

If you want paper charts, there's a cost of printing, mailing,
handling, storage, middlemen'd margins etc etc etc. You should have to
pay for that.

If it's an electronic file d/loaded off a Web site, the cost is the
storage on disk, extra wear & tear on hardware, bandwidth and
bugger-all else.

So what's the problem in providing data that taxpayer's dollars have
collected, to those taxpayers?

I have a vested interest in this. Unlike most of you, including Dave,
my organisation is a data *providor*. We provide the data we collect to
anyone who wants it, for free. The cost & aggravation of setting up the
s/ware and management structure needed to bill people for data is way
in excess of the marginal cost to us of just making it available for
free. I just upload it all into a big Oracle database and that's the
end of it. The stuff I collect is for places where the surveys have
been either sparse or nonexistent, of no use to yachts etc, so I doubt
anyone here would be interested, but the principle remains.

So Dave, unlike you, I know the cost of giving out data that taxpayers
have already paid to collect. It's minuscule.

PDW

Dave wrote:
I should, of course, have said "incremental cost" rather than "marginal
cost" in my previous post.

Right, but Peter's point is still valid_ that it may cost
more to bill for the data & collect payment than they are
receiving, and the data itself is already paid for ...and
there is enough "common good" benefit that it's not really
bilking the taxpayers even if they don't have the foggiest
idea why they need it.

Charts are expensive, but I don't believe for a minute that
yachtsmen have paid the entire cost of the surveying, much
less everything else. And I don't believe we should, either;
for the same reasons that I don't believe residents of the
area devastated by Hurricane Katrina should bear the whole
cost of rebuilding.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Larry wrote:

NO service provided to any taxpayer, in any country, should be
fee-based. The taxpayers have already paid through-the-nose for the
service or data and should not be charged twice for its delivery or
use....

Where is this written? I hardly expect my non-ambulatory neighbor to pay
for my passport..

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Dave wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006 10:24:24 -0800, "Da Kine"
said:

Esquire is a title of nobility and used by most attorneys and
most politicians that clime high are attorneys so you can see where
this country went wrong!

Actually, a lawyer with any degree of self-confidence and sense of
propriety will use "Esq." only when writing other lawyers--not with
reference to himself. Unfortunately, there are a few, particularly
those just out of law school, who are very full of themselves and
insist on using it indiscriminately.

I am not sure this is only an issue of self-confidence. My wife sometimes
finds it helpful, and perhaps necessary, to append "Esq." in legal
correspondence not directed to other attorneys. She does not appear to
suffer from either over-confidence or lack of self-confidence.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Da Kine wrote:
I re read this and should have spell checked it in something. Clime
should have been climb and attacked should read attached. There are
probably a few more but oh well - you get the idea. Somebody tell
google to put a spell checker on their beta site so I don't type so
many mistakes:-) I guess you can tell what time of day I type
something by the number of misspells there are!

For those of us without clairvoyance, would you please quote at least _some_
of the content you are replying to so that we may follow the discussion more
easily?

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Dave wrote:
"Armond Perretta" said:

My wife sometimes
finds it helpful, and perhaps necessary, to append "Esq." in legal
correspondence not directed to other attorneys.

Under what circumstances is it necessary, or even helpful for a
lawyer to append "Esq." to her own name?

I suppose my wife could best answer your question but she's not here just
now. In general I would guess this situation arises in circumstances where
one's actions or qualifications as an attorney are relevant to the
correspondence under consideration.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Dave wrote:

The _only_ function "Esq." serves, when a lawyer adds it to his own
name, is to tip off the reader that this guy has an inflated opinion
of himself, and anything he says should be discounted by about half.

I certainly am in no position to argue against your clearly well-researched
findings in this area.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:41:52 -0500, DSK said:

Right, but Peter's point is still valid_ that it may cost
more to bill for the data & collect payment than they are
receiving, and the data itself is already paid for ...and
there is enough "common good" benefit that it's not really
bilking the taxpayers even if they don't have the foggiest
idea why they need it.

Agreed certainly in the case of Internet distribution like what NOAA is
doing now. My real point was that questions like this ought not to be
decided based on moralistic screaming about the fact that the taxpayers have
already paid for the initial cost.

Charts are expensive, but I don't believe for a minute that
yachtsmen have paid the entire cost of the surveying, much
less everything else. And I don't believe we should, either;
for the same reasons that I don't believe residents of the
area devastated by Hurricane Katrina should bear the whole
cost of rebuilding.

While I don't necessarily agree with your rationale, I do accept the
conclusion. There are perfectly good reasons for the public's paying for the
collection of data and preparation of the charts. Among other things, the
Navy and CG need decent charts; and there don't seem to be any entrepreneurs
with open check books seeking to form a private marine charting operation.

And I venture to state that there never will be, even with swathe
mapping and differential GPS. If I can justify it, I'm gonna fit a
swathe mapper next time we do a big refit.

PDW

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:02:59 -0500, Larry said:

NOAA is not providing free charts. NOAA is providing its TAXPAYERS a
SERVICE for the money that has been extracted from them by force.

NO service provided to any taxpayer, in any country, should be fee-based.
The taxpayers have already paid through-the-nose for the service or data
and should not be charged twice for its delivery or use....


So, Larry, 'splain to me again why you and I and other yachtsmen deserve to
have those folks out in Arizona pay for our charts.

Hi Dave:

Uhh, for the same reason Oregon is forced to send electricity to AZ and
water and electricity to CA. And I think there is something about a
federal interstate hwy system too.

I think its called the United States and not simply the State of
America.

But I DO agree that the GPO and every other .gov agency should
distribute information freely with out fees. Although, some folks think
that is unfair competition for the poor business owners who want to
sell us electronic maps.

I apologize for the political stuff. Back to boats..........

For a real question. I don't have or use a chart plotter or computer
based charting. So please keep it simple for me.
If I download the NOAA e-charts can I also down load the weekly Notice
To Mariners and have the updates automatically placed on the NOAA
e-charts?
Bob

you can search what ever you want for downloads he
http://www.uscg.mil/USCG.shtm