| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
October 10th 05, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
October 10th 05, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor, there will still be starving people, there will still be inequality, and the world will not be any better a place than it is today. Sounds pretty fatalistic to me. I say things can be made a lot better, if the will is there to do it. Oh? The United Nations tried in Somalia. And they failed. You're saying that one failure proves there's no point in trying to change anything when it comes to poverty, inequality, or making the world a better place. They were more interested in guerrila warfare. Seems they couldn't find the resources to feed themselves, yet when the resources were brought to them, they resorted to murder and feudalistic warfare. Sure. They valued warfare higher. Doesn't mean everyone does. Take the whole energy issue. Suppose there *were* a serious, longterm, well-funded national program to improve our energy situation. Attack on all fronts - conservation, recycling, new sources, greater efficiency, etc. Do you really think such a program couldn't help improve the lives of almost all Americans? Hmmm? Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down" effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and deep felt. Can you guarantee that those advances would not have happened if the money had been spent on research in the fields directly affected? IOW, why not simply go after a problem directly? In industrialized society's history, major technological advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war). There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them. "Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private inventors. BINGO! The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer, ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from private industry, for commercial purposes. No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have occured...but WHEN would they have occured? Nobody knows. Right - who knows. Nobody. Technological advance isn't always predictable. True...there's no linear scale to it. But it's been in a positive trend with STEEP improvements following warfare. Not because of warfare, but because the resources were dedicated to solving the problems. One interesting historic game is to look at what was predicted for the future back 10, 20, 30 years. It's hilarious how many predictions never came true, and how many things that are common today were not foreseen. And how much of it COULD have been done if only the money were applied to them? Some could, others were simply not practical. Point is, nobody seems to be very good at predicting the future of technologies. Even the "experts" and "professionals" get it wrong most of the time. But people don't remember what an awful track record they have... As much as I believe that the Space program was a peaceful spur to technology, in the end, I don't care. I like adventure, I like science, and I like exploring. People *will" go into space, people *will* go to Mars. Will it be us, or will we be known as the Portuguese of space exploration? IOW, you're in it for the Buck Rogers factor. Huh? Don't you remember "Buck Rogers"? Old sci-fi character. The reference means Mike is more interested in the excitement than the hard science or the technological benefits. Recall that the "great nations of Europe in the 16th century" all went exploring for *commercial* and *political* reasons. For the bucks, not Buck Rogers. And did science NOT benefit, Jim? Not really. And the point is they did *not* go exploring for "science" or "because it's there" but for reasons like making money. Did I not say that direct commercial investment was a prime source of scientific advancement? Certainly NOT in the time frame that they have. Why not? The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost us dearly, and will cost us more, until we tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to do it for us. Paying big bucks for the Buck Rogers factor, while ignoring the serious earth-bound issues like energy supply, trade deficit and vulnerability to weather disruption isn't smart...(SNIP) OK... That's the very argument that was bantied around at the end of the Apollo project. Were they wrong or right? So the Space Program got back-burner'd except for robotic explorations, the ISS and and the Shuttle. Also Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars missions.. Hardly "back-burner". How much was NASA's budget in those years? How much is it now? And how much would it have cost to continue lunar missions? Global warming is as bad if not worse than it ever was in the 70's. Think about *why*. It's not because of NASA. It's because, after a few years of gasoline shortages, fossil fuels became cheap and plentiful in the early 1980s. And the problems were largely ignored. Which administration refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement? However spaceborne assets such as the Shuttle, ISS and MIR have been used to document and archive these events as never before possible. I think most of that data collection is done by unmanned weather and geological observation satellites. Poverty is as bad if not worse as it was in the 70's. Think about *why*. Most of Africa is a wasteland. AIDS shot across the continent like a cannon-shot. Think about *why*. The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were periods of great scientific expansion and awareness of not only ourselves, but our "communities" of the world. Sure - for a bunch of reasons, not just space programs. But science is useless unless the knowledge is put to work. Today our kids can't even find Africa on a map. Depends which kids you ask. I know plenty of elementary-school kids who can. It's exactly like the guy who buys season tickets and a new bigscreen plasma TV/home theatre to watch the games using a credit card. While he ignores his rundown, collapsing house, sick children and insecure job situation. Amazing how we arrive at the same point via different paths. (Wanna buy an AK-47...?!?!) The question is *why* that guy wants/needs an AK-47 rather than, say, a better plow or clean water. Is it because he's an aggressor? Is it because he's been attacked so many times that he needs it to defend himself? Is it some other reason? Consider this, Steve: The reason "we" succeeded in going to the moon was that a clear goal was defined, nearly-unlimited resources allocated, and limitations on success were kept to a minimum. If it took a three-man crew, they sent three men - not two and not four. That one of them would go all the way to the moon and back yet never set foot on it did not change the plans. That they built an enormous and expensive rocket, and only got a small capsule back, did not change the plans either. They simply did what was needed to meet the goal and nothing more nor less. Similar methods can be used to solve some (but not all) earth-bound problems. But too often, "we" are unwilling to do what's needed here at home to make it happen. Problems which are not as tough as Apollo (such as modern surface transportation) are considered "too hard" to solve. There's another factor at work, too: short attention span. The moon missions were essentially a crash program - the Rooskies were beating us in space "firsts", and JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. So NASA got a blank check, contractors got cost-plus contracts and things went night and day for almost a decade. But when it was done, there wasn't a long-term plan for after-the-moon. Americans seem to do well in crises but not so well at careful long-term changes and planning. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#43
October 10th 05, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K=D8HB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote I'm not talking about overall economics, Hans. I'm talking about the US importing a large percentage of its oil needs. We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and fin= ished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing.= And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Example: During the 1930s, the USA exported all sorts of things to Japan, both raw materials and manufactured goods. Like oil and vacuum tubes, neither of which Japan could produce in large quantities on their own. US industry liked the hard currency that Japan paid with. It was obvious early on that much of those exports were being used to build up Japan's military, and *not* for defense of Japan. But by the time the USA acted to stop it, Japan had become a serious adversary. If you had to choose between fuel for some Escalade luvvin momma, and t= he fuel for say our military to train with, who would ya choose? I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other g= oods I mentioned. The point is that individuals here don't make that choice about oil any m= ore than a citizen of Japan makes that choice about lumber when they want to = build a new home. Oh yes they do! Individuals here have at least some control over how much oil they use. They have some control in the short term (how much they drive, how they drive, how they set their thermostats), more control in the longer term (what car they drive, how efficient their homes are) and still more in the very long term (alternative energy sources, alternative technologies). If the cost of oil goes too high, then Escalades will fall from favor and be replaced by and Vegas and Pintos. If the price of lumber gets too= high, Japanese homes will be built from compressed rice straw or some other mat= erial. Sure. But that's not the only factor. Has nothing to do with patriotism. Has to do with simple economics. Long-term outlook. Sustainable technologies. Political and social ramifications of "economic" decisions. Lots more than simple economics. Look at the big picture. I do. One thing I hear from folks who have been to Europe and Japan is how great their transit systems are. How they make it possible for most people to live without a car, or with only one car per family, because it's easy, safe and cheap to go places by transit. Some say the US isn't like those countries in that our population is more spread out and the whole country is bigger. Which is true in some cases. But consider this: - Before WW2, much of the USA was crisscrossed by electric trolley and interurban lines. Many small towns had frequent, inexpensive, fast trolley service, which usually interconnected with other lines. These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. - The Los Angeles area used to have the Pacific Electric system, which was systematically dismantled after WW2 by a conglomerate of oil, rubber and automakers. Now LA has the "Blue Line", which was predicted to be a failure, because 'Los Angelenos won't get out of their cars', yet it has been well-used since the day it opened. - In Europe and Japan, transit isn't expected to make a profit or even pay its own way. It is systematically subsidized by taxes on motor fuels. Typical subsidy is about 50% of *operating* costs. For capital costs, consider that the Paris Metro has been almost constantly expanded since its opening over 100 years ago. =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#44
October 10th 05, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. Which part is a "not good" idea? Why? We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why? .... These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago. I'd rather fly. (I doubt the " 90% trolley line" story is true.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#45
October 10th 05, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thing or some result of value. JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank lots of vodka. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
|
#46
October 10th 05, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K=D8HB wrote: wrote We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and finished goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And, yes, even oil. Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea. Which part is a "not good" idea? Why? When we become too dependent on imports of things that are not easily replaced, so that disruptions in the import process cause major upheavals in our economy. When the importing causes us to transfer large amounts of hard currency to people who may then use it against us. Example: The USA imported large amounts of oil from Iraq back in the 1980s. Which gave the dictator of that country the ability to buy lots of weapons and build up a large military. Said dictator then used said military to invade and devastate a neighboring country from which we also imported large amounts of oil. A war was then fought to stop the dictator's expansion. Said dictator also perpetrated a long string of human rights violations against his own people and his neighbors. Was it a good idea for the USA to import oil from that country back in the 1980s? We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food (wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education. Medicine. And again - some of that isn't a good idea. Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why? When the exporting causes us to empower people who may then use our exports against us. The example of the USA exporting raw materials and finished goods to Japan in the 1930s is one example. Another is how the USA supported extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s because they opposed the existing regime, which was closely allied to the Soviet Union. Those extremists were called "freedom fighters" at the time. But when the Soviets left and the existing regime fell, the "freedom fighters" established a regime that was even more repressive (by our standards, anyway). That regime made the country a training ground for extremists who went on to attack the USA. Was it a good idea for the USA to export technology, training and weapons to Afghanistan back in the 1980s? .... These systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines for more than 90% of the distance. I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago. But you need a car for shorter trips. And that's not the point, anyway. The point is that there was once an extensive system of trolley and interurban lines in the USA, much of which is long gone. At its peak in 1915, there were more than 15,000 miles of such lines in the USA. I'd rather fly. (I doubt the " 90% trolley line" story is true.) It's true. The trip was made in 1909 by J.S. Moulton of New York City. It is documented in "Railway Quarterly", winter issue, 1982. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#47
October 10th 05, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody v= alues warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thin= g or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of = the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank= lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two countries, and their representatives. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#48
October 10th 05, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote They valued warfare higher. As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody= values warfare except arms vendors. Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some th= ing or some result of value. Well said! JFK needed something that looked good to counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis. "Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics o= f the results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and dra= nk lots of vodka. Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place. IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop, compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles. So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba. Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted. But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were quietly removed from Turkey. bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days mentions it and that the Jupiters were obsolete and scheduled for withdraw and the Kendy had ordered their withdraw several time And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two countries, and their representatives. =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#49
October 11th 05, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"an old friend" wrote bull**** Jim every movie or account of those days ........... I don't know what they taught you as a Colonel in the Chemical Corps, but I was there on the blockade line (didn't watch some sensational movie version) and Jim speaks truly. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
|
#50
October 11th 05, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Beware of hams planting dis-information... | CB | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
