Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilopi
If they were truly "upfront" about this, they would be out of business, so I disagree that they are upfront. Just because they answered questions honestly doesn't mean that they haven't hidden something.
|
Not Necessarily. People will spend money for the strangest things even when they know it's worthless. It's my understanding that parents can pay a company to register their child in a "Who's Who" book. Perhaps this is similar. Even if the child needs to meet elegibility requirements for inclusion, it's still a commercial effort and not an official documentation. When I was in High School, I was a State Scholar which is an official recognition with documentation.I don't mean to brag, but it seems an apt analogy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilopi
An example. You go to buy a car, and you ask the salesman if the car had ever been in a major accident, and he admits it has. He's honest. However, if the next customer comes in and buys it without asking the question, and the salesperson doesn't inform them, in some places the salesperson would be breaking the law. In that case the salesperson didn't lie to the customer, they just didn't tell the truth, as is required by law.
|
I used to sell cars and you're right. In Illinois, it is my understanding that the seller is not required to disclose information. However, they are not allowed to lie either. The last car I purchased had been in an accident prior. It was obvious when you saw the over-spray and other signs. I asked him flat out and he looked me straight in the eye and declared "I don't know." Good, he didn't lie to me. Better yet, the bank checked the VIN, got the vehicle history, and made them drop the price a few grand. Always check the VIN if you plan to buy a used car. [This is not legal advice, but good common sense.]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TraingleMan
For something like the ISR, sure. Small value consumer-claims aren't even worth the time to pursue them in court (who is going to go after ISR for a $50 refund?) and are not a big concern of most governments. But in the US the line between imply and infer is getting moved around, at least in regards to large money items such as investments. The disclosure required these days for publicly-traded companies is enormous and making a large business deal using a lot of inference in your proposal will definately land you in court if the earnings go south. The business community does not like "I didn't tell you because you didn't ask" approaches to disclosure.
|
Yes, I doubt the star name registry companies will be targeted for suit. However, the points you just raised might apply to lunar land grab companies. Maybe not for a $20 acre... But perhaps the hotel chains that drop tens of thousands might eventually move to litigation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TriangleMan
While I don't think that ISR is doing anything illegal one has to ask why they pointed out the Swiss Bank vault and (used to say?) that the book was registered at the Library of Congress. To give an unsophisticated reader the impression of its officiality? Why disclose details like that and not something more significant like "the astronomical community will not use your name"?
|
Perhaps they don't want people to know that. We are all guilty of omitting embarassing details. Besides, they probably want to sell the book so that any person could take it to an astronomer to look it up using the catalog numbers assigned to it. Maybe, some enterprising astronomer will start charging people to see their star. Maybe people will get re-interested in science and space and decide to support NASA and we could all go to the stars and, and, whew... better stop dreaming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by degruss23
It seems there is general agreement that the biggest problem with what they are doing is they have not put on their website that they are not recognized by astronomers.
|
I heard that Phil Plait does have a star named after him. Would that constitute recognition?