Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
staradvertiser.com
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#2Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#3The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article:
> But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom.
The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The article https://bigislandnow.com/2018/08/08/supreme-court-rules-in-f... implies that the issues were largely procedural and this decision isn't actually deciding if any of the above are true.
So I'm left seeing big claims, but no real idea on if those claims are true-but-ignored, mostly-not-true, or a fringe-group-only-viewpoint. (While the media coverage IMPLIES that those claims ARE decided, and it's that implication that bugs me)
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#4>Thirty Meter astronomers had said if they didn’t get a green light to build on Mauna Kea, they would build it on La Palma in the Canary Islands, off Africa.
Good for them
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#5Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Australia has one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Advertiser_(Adelaide)
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#6The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…
Thanks, that phrase,
> or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom
made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#7>Thirty Meter astronomers had said if they didn’t get a green light to build on Mauna Kea, they would build it on La Palma in the Canary Islands, off Africa. Good for them
Mauna Kea is 6000 ft higher though.
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#8Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Advertiser was a common name for newspapers at the time. It's an old publication (although I'm pretty sure it was called SomethingElse Advertiser). I'd guess it's using the older definition of advertiser "call attention to". The fact that the ads were well targeted was coincidence.
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#9The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…
Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.
I think that since it didn't voluntarily surrender its sovereignty, some might feel it should still have it, but I don't know too much about the subject, so maybe it's time for me to read up a bit.
Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope
#10The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…
Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.
Presumably this is somewhat similar to other native american tribes where there are treaties and legal structures that allow them to make their case under that name / formalized what it means today?