Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interesting News Article
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
Jun 14, 2012, 3:14:34 PM6/14/12
to
I saw a post referencing this article
http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
unemployment.
Had those conditions continued, with the attainment of legal equality
for black people during the 1970s, by today there would _be_ almost no
black underclass, and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack Obama
can be President, obviously there is no longer a race issue, and black
people should just shut up and work harder.
Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy, or
even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there to make
money in the existing world economic conditions. Give them one sort of
conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing in new technology;
give them another, and they will retrench.
Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been a long-term feature of
developed economies. When environmental conditions are good,
population increases until the ratio of people to the existing
resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
for aphids infesting a mushroom.
What is needed to change the relationship between people and their
environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
to be supported. This can happen in peacetime - a very notable example
is the "Green Revolution", for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug,
has recently received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but in general,
the market rewards investment in technology only when it translates
into products in short order.
This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers - integrated
circuitry is not yet a mature technology, so investments in research
there have a big payoff.
A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
address.
A new technical toolkit changes the amount of resources a given
population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
So, in my opinion, more government support of science and technology
is required. However, even more important are things with a shorter-
term payoff, such as applying the technologies we already have;
increasing our supply of energy through nuclear power is the most
obvious one.
John Savard
http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
unemployment.
Had those conditions continued, with the attainment of legal equality
for black people during the 1970s, by today there would _be_ almost no
black underclass, and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack Obama
can be President, obviously there is no longer a race issue, and black
people should just shut up and work harder.
Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy, or
even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there to make
money in the existing world economic conditions. Give them one sort of
conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing in new technology;
give them another, and they will retrench.
Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been a long-term feature of
developed economies. When environmental conditions are good,
population increases until the ratio of people to the existing
resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
for aphids infesting a mushroom.
What is needed to change the relationship between people and their
environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
to be supported. This can happen in peacetime - a very notable example
is the "Green Revolution", for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug,
has recently received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but in general,
the market rewards investment in technology only when it translates
into products in short order.
This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers - integrated
circuitry is not yet a mature technology, so investments in research
there have a big payoff.
A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
address.
A new technical toolkit changes the amount of resources a given
population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
So, in my opinion, more government support of science and technology
is required. However, even more important are things with a shorter-
term payoff, such as applying the technologies we already have;
increasing our supply of energy through nuclear power is the most
obvious one.
John Savard
Rod Speed
Jun 14, 2012, 4:32:31 PM6/14/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> I saw a post referencing this article
> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn.
That last is just plain wrong when the unemployment rate bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense illegal and legal immigration rate, and the
participation rate at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode much of the world's financial
system, again.
> As opposed to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom
> where there was significant upward mobility into the middle class
That still happens today, most obviously with immigrants from the third
world.
> and low unemployment.
And that still happens today too
> Had those conditions continued, with the attainment
> of legal equality for black people during the 1970s, by
> today there would _be_ almost no black underclass,
There will ALWAYS be an underclass, if only because
some will always be into drugs rather than work etc.
Even more than there used to be in some ways
now that so many of the worst jobs have been
automated or have moved off to china etc.
> and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
I don't believe that happens anywhere.
> instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack
> Obama can be President, obviously there is no longer a race
> issue, and black people should just shut up and work harder.
It's a valid point with those who decide
that drug running is where the money is.
Corse that's not unique to the blacks.
> Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy,
> or even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there
> to make money in the existing world economic conditions. Give
> them one sort of conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing
> in new technology; give them another, and they will retrench.
I don't believe that anything politicians can do
policy wise can do much about that sort of thing.
That cant be the reason that so much technology happened
first in the US in say the century between 1850 and 1950.
The cause of that has to be MUCH more fundamental.
And it hasn't stopped either, most obviously
with ebay, google, facebook, ipods etc etc etc.
> Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been
> a long-term feature of developed economies.
We didn't actually see that post WW2. Its very
arguable whether that was due to the cold war,
Korea, or stuff like the Marshall Plan etc.
> When environmental conditions are good,
> population increases until the ratio of people
> to the existing resources becomes unfavorable -
That's stopped happening now in the modern first world.
NOT ONE modern first world country is even self replacing
on population now if you take out immigration.
Its less clear why that's happened, whether it's the
number of women working now or just what its due to.
> this is true for humans just as it is for aphids infesting a mushroom.
Not anymore its not.
Even in the third world, birth rates keep dropping. The only
exception is where the birth rate is already way below the
replacement level where you do see a bit of noise in the numbers.
> What is needed to change the relationship between
> people and their environment is investment in new
> technologies that allow more people to be supported.
That isnt needed in the US where the unemployment rate
bottomed at 4.x% with an immense illegal and legal immigration
rate, and the participation rate at an all time historic high, just
before the clowns were allowed to completely implode much
of the world's financial system, again.
> This can happen in peacetime
Yes, it obviously did with computers and communications.
> - a very notable example is the "Green Revolution",
> for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug, has recently
> received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
> ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but
> in general, the market rewards investment in technology
> only when it translates into products in short order.
That's not really true. Self publishing and blogs etc didn't
turn into products in short order and took off fine.
> This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers
That's not right.
> - integrated circuitry is not yet a mature technology,
> so investments in research there have a big payoff.
Its actually the maturity of the technology that's the biggest factor.
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful peacetime
> applications that the market would have found difficult to address.
That didn't really happen anything like as much with Korea and later.
The only thing that really came out of Korea was
chopper evacuation of serious accident victims.
Fuck all came out of vietnam except laser guided bombs etc.
Nothing of any real value came out of the invasion of Iraq at all.
Tho terrorists would claim that IEDs did.
Pilotless drones have come out of Afghanistan, but that's about it.
The only thing that came out of the Boer
War was concentration camps for civilians.
> A new technical toolkit changes the amount of resources a
> given population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
Yes, but that's never something that any political policy produces
except in the sense that WW1 and WW2 did produce quite a bit of that.
> So, in my opinion, more government support
> of science and technology is required.
That's not my opinion given that the PC
did fine without any govt support at all.
> However, even more important are things with a
> shorter- term payoff, such as applying the technologies
> we already have; increasing our supply of energy through
> nuclear power is the most obvious one.
Sure. Difficult politically tho.
> I saw a post referencing this article
> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn.
at 4.x% with an immense illegal and legal immigration rate, and the
participation rate at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode much of the world's financial
system, again.
> As opposed to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom
> where there was significant upward mobility into the middle class
world.
> and low unemployment.
And that still happens today too
> Had those conditions continued, with the attainment
> of legal equality for black people during the 1970s, by
> today there would _be_ almost no black underclass,
some will always be into drugs rather than work etc.
Even more than there used to be in some ways
now that so many of the worst jobs have been
automated or have moved off to china etc.
> and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
> instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack
> Obama can be President, obviously there is no longer a race
> issue, and black people should just shut up and work harder.
that drug running is where the money is.
Corse that's not unique to the blacks.
> Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy,
> or even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there
> to make money in the existing world economic conditions. Give
> them one sort of conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing
> in new technology; give them another, and they will retrench.
policy wise can do much about that sort of thing.
That cant be the reason that so much technology happened
first in the US in say the century between 1850 and 1950.
The cause of that has to be MUCH more fundamental.
And it hasn't stopped either, most obviously
with ebay, google, facebook, ipods etc etc etc.
> Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been
> a long-term feature of developed economies.
arguable whether that was due to the cold war,
Korea, or stuff like the Marshall Plan etc.
> When environmental conditions are good,
> population increases until the ratio of people
> to the existing resources becomes unfavorable -
NOT ONE modern first world country is even self replacing
on population now if you take out immigration.
Its less clear why that's happened, whether it's the
number of women working now or just what its due to.
> this is true for humans just as it is for aphids infesting a mushroom.
Even in the third world, birth rates keep dropping. The only
exception is where the birth rate is already way below the
replacement level where you do see a bit of noise in the numbers.
> What is needed to change the relationship between
> people and their environment is investment in new
> technologies that allow more people to be supported.
bottomed at 4.x% with an immense illegal and legal immigration
rate, and the participation rate at an all time historic high, just
before the clowns were allowed to completely implode much
of the world's financial system, again.
> This can happen in peacetime
> - a very notable example is the "Green Revolution",
> for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug, has recently
> received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
> ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but
> in general, the market rewards investment in technology
> only when it translates into products in short order.
turn into products in short order and took off fine.
> This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers
> - integrated circuitry is not yet a mature technology,
> so investments in research there have a big payoff.
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful peacetime
> applications that the market would have found difficult to address.
The only thing that really came out of Korea was
chopper evacuation of serious accident victims.
Fuck all came out of vietnam except laser guided bombs etc.
Nothing of any real value came out of the invasion of Iraq at all.
Tho terrorists would claim that IEDs did.
Pilotless drones have come out of Afghanistan, but that's about it.
The only thing that came out of the Boer
War was concentration camps for civilians.
> A new technical toolkit changes the amount of resources a
> given population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
except in the sense that WW1 and WW2 did produce quite a bit of that.
> So, in my opinion, more government support
> of science and technology is required.
did fine without any govt support at all.
> However, even more important are things with a
> shorter- term payoff, such as applying the technologies
> we already have; increasing our supply of energy through
> nuclear power is the most obvious one.
Matthias Warkus
Jun 14, 2012, 4:35:24 PM6/14/12
to
Am 14.06.12 21:14, schrieb Quadibloc:
> This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers
No.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
> When environmental conditions are good,
> population increases until the ratio of people to the existing
> resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
> for aphids infesting a mushroom.
No.
> population increases until the ratio of people to the existing
> resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
> for aphids infesting a mushroom.
> This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Peter Flass
Jun 14, 2012, 6:17:26 PM6/14/12
to
On 6/14/2012 3:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I saw a post referencing this article
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>
> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
> unemployment.
>
That would be my thought too, but how old is Peter Thiel? For most
> I saw a post referencing this article
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>
> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
> unemployment.
>
people the best of times would be when they were in their late teens
thru their twenties, and it's all been downhill from there - no matter
what era you're talking about.
--
Pete
Greg Goss
Jun 14, 2012, 9:31:57 PM6/14/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I saw a post referencing this article
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>
>in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>unemployment.
There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the way, the
>I saw a post referencing this article
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>
>in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>unemployment.
productive capacity of just about every industrial nation on the
planet except for America and a few pink countries was bombed back to
the stone age.
It's easy to win the game if you have factories and the other guys
have to go back to horses.
So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal after twenty
years of being the only game in town.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Rod Speed
Jun 14, 2012, 11:15:54 PM6/14/12
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
That last didn't happen either.
> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>> I saw a post referencing this article
>>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>> unemployment.
> There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the
> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
That last is just plain wrong with all but a couple of countrys.
>> I saw a post referencing this article
>>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>> unemployment.
> There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the
> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
--
> I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
> Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
> wouldn't have rusted like this.
Or it was always rusted.
> I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
> Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
> wouldn't have rusted like this.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jun 15, 2012, 6:38:29 AM6/15/12
to
In article
<5c5e1f96-56c9-4f08...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
you do not hit the overdraft limit.
To take WW2 as an example the theoretical work on just about everything
was done before the war some of it in fact was done before WW1. Ship
design and tank testing goes back to Froud. Even the atomic bomb can be
traced to a pre-war origin. Modern artillery is a refinement of designs
starting in the 1850s. Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
I suppose it is possible to make a case for SMG being invented during
WW1 but blowback weapons had been in use pre war.
Ken Young
<5c5e1f96-56c9-4f08...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote:
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas
No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas
compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
you do not hit the overdraft limit.
To take WW2 as an example the theoretical work on just about everything
was done before the war some of it in fact was done before WW1. Ship
design and tank testing goes back to Froud. Even the atomic bomb can be
traced to a pre-war origin. Modern artillery is a refinement of designs
starting in the 1850s. Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
I suppose it is possible to make a case for SMG being invented during
WW1 but blowback weapons had been in use pre war.
Ken Young
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jun 15, 2012, 9:12:39 AM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
improving since WWII not just computing.
Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then look
at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made vast
changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
Sure, we're seeing a stagnation in development.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Joe Makowiec
Jun 15, 2012, 9:51:06 AM6/15/12
to
On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
> years, not just computing.
Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
> years, not just computing.
are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
byproduct of the cold war.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Michael Stemper
Jun 15, 2012, 10:39:05 AM6/15/12
to
In article <a3vnng...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>
>And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
Some time in roughly the 1968-1975 timeframe, I read a short story
set in a drafting office. One of the draftsman would regularly expound
on the "fact" that the Allies lost WWII. His evidence was the huge
sums of money spent rebuilding Germany and Japan, which were obviously
war reparations.
Another draftsman had a French curve that he claimed was modeled off
of Brigitte Bardot's legs, or possibly Marilyn Monroe's.
I remember absolutely nothing else about this story.
Any ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>
>And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
set in a drafting office. One of the draftsman would regularly expound
on the "fact" that the Allies lost WWII. His evidence was the huge
sums of money spent rebuilding Germany and Japan, which were obviously
war reparations.
Another draftsman had a French curve that he claimed was modeled off
of Brigitte Bardot's legs, or possibly Marilyn Monroe's.
I remember absolutely nothing else about this story.
Any ideas?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Charles Richmond
Jun 15, 2012, 11:09:33 AM6/15/12
to
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20120615141239....@eircom.net...
But most of them improved by adding computers (heart pacemakers, cars,
robotic surgery, washing machines, etc.) or by using computers to develop
them. So in a sense, they are spin-offs of the computer improvements.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
news:20120615141239....@eircom.net...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
> improving since WWII not just computing.
>
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
> look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made
> vast
> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>
You say that *more* technological areas have improved besides computers.
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
> improving since WWII not just computing.
>
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
> look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made
> vast
> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>
But most of them improved by adding computers (heart pacemakers, cars,
robotic surgery, washing machines, etc.) or by using computers to develop
them. So in a sense, they are spin-offs of the computer improvements.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jun 15, 2012, 11:05:30 AM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> > Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
> > and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
> > to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
> > years, not just computing.
>
> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
> byproduct of the cold war.
Perhaps - but they don't seem to have slowed down or ground to a
Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> > Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
> > and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
> > to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
> > years, not just computing.
>
> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
> byproduct of the cold war.
halt in the last 20 years since the cold war ended.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jun 15, 2012, 11:27:08 AM6/15/12
to
years are electronics, computers and materials - these have impacted
*everything* including each other. There's been a lot in medicine that
hasn't come from those three though, consider cancer survival rates for
various types of cancer over the last 50 years for one example.
Ultimately all technology is a spin-off from the invention of
tools and all science a spin-off from the invention of language.
David Johnston
Jun 15, 2012, 11:40:18 AM6/15/12
to
On 6/14/2012 1:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> address.
Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> address.
Cryptoengineer
Jun 15, 2012, 11:50:32 AM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 11:40 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 1:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> > development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> > peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> > address.
Cold War -> (D)ARPA -> Internet, et alia
> On 6/14/2012 1:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> > development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> > peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> > address.
pt
Charlie Gibbs
Jun 15, 2012, 12:48:11 PM6/15/12
to
In article
<5c5e1f96-56c9-4f08...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes:
<snip>
> What is needed to change the relationship between people and their
> environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
> to be supported.
<snip>
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research
> and development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult
> to address.
So basically what we need is more people and more wars. Easy enough
to do - given sufficient population pressure, war is inevitable.
And given that the Earth is finite, a policy of infinite growth
will guarantee that level of population pressure sooner or later.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
<5c5e1f96-56c9-4f08...@y3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes:
<snip>
> What is needed to change the relationship between people and their
> environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
> to be supported.
> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research
> and development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult
> to address.
to do - given sufficient population pressure, war is inevitable.
And given that the Earth is finite, a policy of infinite growth
will guarantee that level of population pressure sooner or later.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Quadibloc
Jun 15, 2012, 12:36:11 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 10:48 am, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
Not really; fewer people _or_ wars to stimulate the technology to
> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
support all those people would be what we "need". Actually, we need
the technology, not the wars, and so what we *really* need to do is
stop waiting until there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance
technology.
John Savard
Greg Goss
Jun 15, 2012, 2:24:43 PM6/15/12
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <a3vnng...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>
>>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>>
>>And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>>japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
>
>Some time in roughly the 1968-1975 timeframe, I read a short story
>set in a drafting office. One of the draftsman would regularly expound
>on the "fact" that the Allies lost WWII. His evidence was the huge
>sums of money spent rebuilding Germany and Japan, which were obviously
>war reparations.
I vaguely recall reading an Analog short story sometime in the
>In article <a3vnng...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>
>>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>>
>>And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>>japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
>
>Some time in roughly the 1968-1975 timeframe, I read a short story
>set in a drafting office. One of the draftsman would regularly expound
>on the "fact" that the Allies lost WWII. His evidence was the huge
>sums of money spent rebuilding Germany and Japan, which were obviously
>war reparations.
eighties (before the endless Japanese recession of the past twenty
years.)
A Japanese immigrant in Silicon Valley builds a time machine and
brings Yamamoto to his living room. He shows Yamamoto a tape of the
Battle of Midway and tries to tell Yamamoto that he's going to be
heading into a trap "tomorrow".
Yamamoto looks around the living room. He'd just been shown a movie
playing on a Hitachi television from a Matsushita VCR. Out the
window, he can see the guy's Honda and his wife's Toyota. Yamamoto
picks up a few more things and observes the "made in Japan" logos on
everything. Concluding that Japan obviously didn't lose the war after
all, he decides to play through his original plan tomorrow after the
inventor sends him back to his flagship.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 2:32:11 PM6/15/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> Someone compared it to a bank account.
Its just another useless analogy.
> In peace time you put ideas (basic research) into the account and during
> a war you draw things out and hope you do not hit the overdraft limit.
Reality is nothing like that. There is no overdraft limit in wartime with
ideas.
No 'account' either with ideas.
> To take WW2 as an example the theoretical work on just about everything
> was done before the war some of it in fact was done before WW1.
That’s true of any development, not just in wartime.
> Ship design and tank testing goes back to Froud. Even
> the atomic bomb can be traced to a pre-war origin.
That’s true of any development, not just wartime development.
> Modern artillery is a refinement of designs starting in the
> 1850s. Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
That’s not right either with the development of
modern disposable automatics like the Owen gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gun
> Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
That’s not right either.
> I suppose it is possible to make a case for SMG being invented
> during WW1 but blowback weapons had been in use pre war.
Sure, but plenty of other technology seen in WW2 like nukes had not.
Computers for code breaking either.
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote
>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>> on research and development in many areas
> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research.
That’s not true. That did happen with nukes.
>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>> on research and development in many areas
> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research.
> Someone compared it to a bank account.
> In peace time you put ideas (basic research) into the account and during
> a war you draw things out and hope you do not hit the overdraft limit.
ideas.
No 'account' either with ideas.
> To take WW2 as an example the theoretical work on just about everything
> was done before the war some of it in fact was done before WW1.
> Ship design and tank testing goes back to Froud. Even
> the atomic bomb can be traced to a pre-war origin.
> Modern artillery is a refinement of designs starting in the
> 1850s. Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
modern disposable automatics like the Owen gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gun
> Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
> I suppose it is possible to make a case for SMG being invented
> during WW1 but blowback weapons had been in use pre war.
Computers for code breaking either.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 2:35:05 PM6/15/12
to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research.
>> Someone compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put
>> ideas (basic research) into the account and during a war you draw
>> things out and hope you do not hit the overdraft limit.
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology
> have been improving since WWII not just computing.
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
> look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made
> vast
> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
> Sure, we're seeing a stagnation in development.
Like hell we are with communications alone.
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research.
>> Someone compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put
>> ideas (basic research) into the account and during a war you draw
>> things out and hope you do not hit the overdraft limit.
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology
> have been improving since WWII not just computing.
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
> look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made
> vast
> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
> Sure, we're seeing a stagnation in development.
And with medicine in spades.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 2:38:54 PM6/15/12
to
Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> which in its turn is a byproduct of the cold war.
Sure, but the unmanned probes arent.
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days
>> when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of course,
>> everything connected to or affected by electronics has
>> improved vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing.
> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and
> (micro)electronics are arguably byproducts of the space race,
Very few were in fact with developments in materials.
>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days
>> when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of course,
>> everything connected to or affected by electronics has
>> improved vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing.
> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and
> (micro)electronics are arguably byproducts of the space race,
> which in its turn is a byproduct of the cold war.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 2:46:49 PM6/15/12
to
"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
news:jrfj7g$1ca$1...@dont-email.me...
technology.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 2:50:54 PM6/15/12
to
David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 3:02:05 PM6/15/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
the PC, ipods etc and smartphones etc now.
> and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until
> there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance technology.
We havent waited for a war for a long time now.
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote
>> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
> Not really; fewer people _or_ wars to stimulate the technology
> to support all those people would be what we "need". Actually,
> we need the technology, not the wars,
And we have basically got that fine lately with
>> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
> Not really; fewer people _or_ wars to stimulate the technology
> to support all those people would be what we "need". Actually,
> we need the technology, not the wars,
the PC, ipods etc and smartphones etc now.
> and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until
> there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance technology.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 3:08:55 PM6/15/12
to
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote
>> What is needed to change the relationship between people
>> and their environment is investment in new technologies
>> that allow more people to be supported.
> Easy enough to do
Nope, not now that EVERY country in the entire world
is now seeing dropping birth rates. The only exception
is those that are way below replacement level now.
- given sufficient population pressure, war is inevitable.
Not anymore. That isnt what drives war anymore and hasn’t been for a long
time now.
> And given that the Earth is finite, a policy of infinite growth
> will guarantee that level of population pressure sooner or later.
Nope, the world's moved on, just like it always does now.
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote
>> What is needed to change the relationship between people
>> and their environment is investment in new technologies
>> that allow more people to be supported.
>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research
>> and development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult
>> to address.
> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
Nope, we don’t need either.
>> and development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult
>> to address.
> So basically what we need is more people and more wars.
> Easy enough to do
Nope, not now that EVERY country in the entire world
is now seeing dropping birth rates. The only exception
is those that are way below replacement level now.
- given sufficient population pressure, war is inevitable.
time now.
> And given that the Earth is finite, a policy of infinite growth
> will guarantee that level of population pressure sooner or later.
Howard Brazee
Jun 15, 2012, 3:14:38 PM6/15/12
to
NFL...
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
Jun 15, 2012, 3:18:14 PM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:24:43 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>I vaguely recall reading an Analog short story sometime in the
>eighties (before the endless Japanese recession of the past twenty
>years.)
That endless recession is more illusionary than real.
>I vaguely recall reading an Analog short story sometime in the
>eighties (before the endless Japanese recession of the past twenty
>years.)
But it was a good story. There are other stories where losers of
wars win in the long run, or even in at least one story, where the
planet getting aid after the war lost to the planet that didn't get
that aid.
JRStern
Jun 15, 2012, 3:29:54 PM6/15/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:14:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>
>in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>unemployment.
What? Gibberish. We added a huge number of new jobs, basically most
of the women in the country moved from housewives only into the job
market, and that in the US. Billions more moved from subsistence
farming into twentieth century manufacturing and service jobs (for
better or worse!) in countries around the world.
>Had those conditions continued, with the attainment of legal equality
>for black people during the 1970s, by today there would _be_ almost no
>black underclass, and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
>instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack Obama
>can be President, obviously there is no longer a race issue, and black
>people should just shut up and work harder.
Yeah right, and I'd be able to dunk a basketball from the free-throw
line.
>Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy, or
>even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there to make
>money in the existing world economic conditions. Give them one sort of
>conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing in new technology;
>give them another, and they will retrench.
>
>Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been a long-term feature of
>developed economies. When environmental conditions are good,
>is the "Green Revolution", for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug,
>has recently received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
>ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but in general,
>the market rewards investment in technology only when it translates
>into products in short order.
This has happened. In 1970 the "informed" opinion thought that the
world could not support four billion people, any more would cause mass
starvation and war. We are now at seven billion and too comfortable
for our own good. Matt Ridley, in "The Rational Optimist", suggests
we can get to eleven billion without any major new breakthroughs at
all.
>This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers - integrated
>circuitry is not yet a mature technology, so investments in research
>there have a big payoff.
Not at all true that progress is mainly in computers, it is also in
telecom, it is also in all sorts of mechanicals from cars to electric
motors, redesigned WITH new computer CAD/CAM systems. New organic
materials. A whole new molecular biology industry and pharma,
undreamed-of in the 1960s.
>A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>address.
>
>A new technical toolkit changes the amount of resources a given
>population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
>
>So, in my opinion, more government support of science and technology
>is required. However, even more important are things with a shorter-
>term payoff, such as applying the technologies we already have;
>increasing our supply of energy through nuclear power is the most
>obvious one.
There are virtually no facts to support your assertions.
That is, your wish has already come true.
J.
>
>John Savard
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I saw a post referencing this article
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
very poorly informed article.
>I saw a post referencing this article
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>
>in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>unemployment.
of the women in the country moved from housewives only into the job
market, and that in the US. Billions more moved from subsistence
farming into twentieth century manufacturing and service jobs (for
better or worse!) in countries around the world.
>Had those conditions continued, with the attainment of legal equality
>for black people during the 1970s, by today there would _be_ almost no
>black underclass, and we would have real racial equality in the U.S. -
>instead of merely claims from right-wingers that since Barack Obama
>can be President, obviously there is no longer a race issue, and black
>people should just shut up and work harder.
Yeah right, and I'd be able to dunk a basketball from the free-throw
line.
>Still, though, I don't think the fault is some sort of conspiracy, or
>even lack of vision, from business people. They're out there to make
>money in the existing world economic conditions. Give them one sort of
>conditions, and they'll be hiring and investing in new technology;
>give them another, and they will retrench.
>
>Historically, the war-boom-bust cycle has been a long-term feature of
>developed economies. When environmental conditions are good,
>population increases until the ratio of people to the existing
>resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
>for aphids infesting a mushroom.
>
>resources becomes unfavorable - this is true for humans just as it is
>for aphids infesting a mushroom.
>
>What is needed to change the relationship between people and their
>environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
>to be supported. This can happen in peacetime - a very notable example
>environment is investment in new technologies that allow more people
>is the "Green Revolution", for which its spearhead, Norman Borlaug,
>has recently received belated credit (for somewhat unfortunate
>ideological reasons to some extent, but I digress) - but in general,
>the market rewards investment in technology only when it translates
>into products in short order.
This has happened. In 1970 the "informed" opinion thought that the
world could not support four billion people, any more would cause mass
starvation and war. We are now at seven billion and too comfortable
for our own good. Matt Ridley, in "The Rational Optimist", suggests
we can get to eleven billion without any major new breakthroughs at
all.
>This is why, currently, progress is mainly in computers - integrated
>circuitry is not yet a mature technology, so investments in research
>there have a big payoff.
Not at all true that progress is mainly in computers, it is also in
telecom, it is also in all sorts of mechanicals from cars to electric
motors, redesigned WITH new computer CAD/CAM systems. New organic
materials. A whole new molecular biology industry and pharma,
undreamed-of in the 1960s.
>A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>address.
>
>population requires to live at a given level of comfort.
>
>So, in my opinion, more government support of science and technology
>is required. However, even more important are things with a shorter-
>term payoff, such as applying the technologies we already have;
>increasing our supply of energy through nuclear power is the most
>obvious one.
There are virtually no facts to support your assertions.
That is, your wish has already come true.
J.
>
>John Savard
Butch Malahide
Jun 15, 2012, 3:32:17 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 2:18 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:24:43 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >I vaguely recall reading an Analog short story sometime in the
> >eighties (before the endless Japanese recession of the past twenty
> >years.)
>
> That endless recession is more illusionary than real.
>
> But it was a good story. There are other stories where losers of
> wars win in the long run,
Mother Earth?
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:24:43 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >I vaguely recall reading an Analog short story sometime in the
> >eighties (before the endless Japanese recession of the past twenty
> >years.)
>
> That endless recession is more illusionary than real.
>
> But it was a good story. There are other stories where losers of
> wars win in the long run,
> or even in at least one story, where the
> planet getting aid after the war lost to the planet that didn't get
> that aid.
Andy Champ
Jun 15, 2012, 4:20:47 PM6/15/12
to
On 15/06/2012 16:27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> The big fundamental areas that have moved a lot in the last 50
> years are electronics, computers and materials - these have impacted
> *everything* including each other. There's been a lot in medicine that
> hasn't come from those three though, consider cancer survival rates for
> various types of cancer over the last 50 years for one example.
There's a lot of genetics (DNA sequencing) and molecular shape modelling
> The big fundamental areas that have moved a lot in the last 50
> years are electronics, computers and materials - these have impacted
> *everything* including each other. There's been a lot in medicine that
> hasn't come from those three though, consider cancer survival rates for
> various types of cancer over the last 50 years for one example.
stuff that wouldn't be possible without modern computers.
Andy
Michael Stemper
Jun 15, 2012, 5:13:59 PM6/15/12
to
earlier, so it didn't have VCRs and such. If I recall correctly, it
was Japanese cameras and German cars that were used as supporting
evidence.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 15, 2012, 5:15:07 PM6/15/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>
>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>
>>It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
>>
>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>
>
> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
> NFL...
>
The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
control technology, too.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>
>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>
>>It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
>>
>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>
>
> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
> NFL...
>
substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
control technology, too.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Howard Brazee
Jun 15, 2012, 5:33:01 PM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:15:07 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>> NFL...
>>
>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
>Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
>control technology, too.
It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>> NFL...
>>
>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
>Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
>control technology, too.
give us. Right now, it appears that killing people with drones
makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs. But
that's the nature of any new technology removing the killing from
being more macho.
David Johnston
Jun 15, 2012, 5:41:27 PM6/15/12
to
On 6/15/2012 12:50 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc wrote
>
>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>>> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>>> address.
>
>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>
> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
Just how much better were aircraft at the end of World War I versus the
> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc wrote
>
>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>>> peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>>> address.
>
>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>
> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
start? (Ignoring purely military applications like figuring out how to
shoot through a propeller.)
Brian M. Scott
Jun 15, 2012, 5:54:42 PM6/15/12
to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:17:26 -0400, Peter Flass
<Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:jrdng8$6iv$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.folklore.computers:
> On 6/14/2012 3:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I saw a post referencing this article
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
If this is the Peter Thiel of PayPal, who is also the
libertarian Peter Thiel who wants to start his own sea-based
country where he won't have to pay taxes, he's 44.
[...]
Brian
<Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:jrdng8$6iv$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.folklore.computers:
> On 6/14/2012 3:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I saw a post referencing this article
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since
>> about 1968, we've basically been in a long-drawn-out
>> economic downturn. As opposed to the "normal" conditions
>> of the postwar economic boom where there was significant
>> upward mobility into the middle class and low
>> unemployment.
> That would be my thought too, but how old is Peter Thiel?
>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since
>> about 1968, we've basically been in a long-drawn-out
>> economic downturn. As opposed to the "normal" conditions
>> of the postwar economic boom where there was significant
>> upward mobility into the middle class and low
>> unemployment.
If this is the Peter Thiel of PayPal, who is also the
libertarian Peter Thiel who wants to start his own sea-based
country where he won't have to pay taxes, he's 44.
[...]
Brian
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 15, 2012, 7:07:49 PM6/15/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
news:0eant7t5vnnsker48...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:15:07 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of
>>> the NFL...
>>>
>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>>traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>>contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>
>>Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
>>control technology, too.
>
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
> technology give us. Right now, it appears that killing people
> with drones makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people
> with bombs. But that's the nature of any new technology
> removing the killing from being more macho.
>
is, in fact, bound to piss off the enemy, and their sympathizers,
especially when they have no hope in hell of ever developing similiar
technology themselves. The counterpoint would be what The West Wing
summarized as "They'll like us when we win."
Be interesting to see how it all turns out. Interesting, in a Chinese
curse sort of way.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 7:10:20 PM6/15/12
to
David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
> (Ignoring purely military applications like figuring out how to shoot
> through a propeller.)
Sure, that one isnt very useful in non war situations.
Quite a few decent advances with ships too in WW1.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>>> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful peacetime
>>>> applications that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
> Just how much better were aircraft at the end of World War I versus the
> start?
Heaps, particularly with the heavier aircraft.
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>>> development in many areas, at least some of which have useful peacetime
>>>> applications that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
> Just how much better were aircraft at the end of World War I versus the
> start?
> (Ignoring purely military applications like figuring out how to shoot
> through a propeller.)
Quite a few decent advances with ships too in WW1.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 7:16:59 PM6/15/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
things.
> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
That's not right. You only get that result because the drones
are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
> But that's the nature of any new technology
> removing the killing from being more macho.
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the NFL...
>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>> and secure remote control technology, too.
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
> give us.
It will indeed, particularly with pilotless aircraft used for all sorts of
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the NFL...
>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>> and secure remote control technology, too.
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
> give us.
things.
> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
> But that's the nature of any new technology
> removing the killing from being more macho.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 15, 2012, 7:18:15 PM6/15/12
to
David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in
news:jrga5u$mbh$1...@dont-email.me:
A hell of a lot better, in fact. In 1914, aircraft were little more
than kits with propellers, barely better than what the Wright
brothers flew a decade earlier. By 1918, they were modern aircraft in
most ways (except jet power), with steel frames, no guy wires (in the
case of the Fokker D-VIII), and modern weapons designs. The Gotha
bombers had a wingspan over 75' and could carry a tone in bombs.
news:jrga5u$mbh$1...@dont-email.me:
than kits with propellers, barely better than what the Wright
brothers flew a decade earlier. By 1918, they were modern aircraft in
most ways (except jet power), with steel frames, no guy wires (in the
case of the Fokker D-VIII), and modern weapons designs. The Gotha
bombers had a wingspan over 75' and could carry a tone in bombs.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 15, 2012, 7:20:19 PM6/15/12
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a41u3f...@mid.individual.net:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of
>>>> the NFL...
>
>>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>>>traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>>>contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
>>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>>> and secure remote control technology, too.
>
>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>> technology give us.
>
> It will indeed, particularly with pilotless aircraft used for
> all sorts of things.
>
>> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
>> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
>
> That's not right. You only get that result because the drones
> are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being able to
kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that is
pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
population as well. It's not fair.
not all).
news:a41u3f...@mid.individual.net:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of
>>>> the NFL...
>
>>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>>>traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>>>contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
>>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>>> and secure remote control technology, too.
>
>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>> technology give us.
>
> It will indeed, particularly with pilotless aircraft used for
> all sorts of things.
>
>> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
>> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
>
> That's not right. You only get that result because the drones
> are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that is
pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
population as well. It's not fair.
>
>> But that's the nature of any new technology
>> removing the killing from being more macho.
>
> That's not right either.
>
It may not be right, but it's certainly correct (for some cultures,
>> But that's the nature of any new technology
>> removing the killing from being more macho.
>
> That's not right either.
>
not all).
Robert Bannister
Jun 15, 2012, 7:42:36 PM6/15/12
to
On 15/06/12 11:15 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
>> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
>> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
>
> That last is just plain wrong with all but a couple of countrys.
Stone Age is an exaggeration, but Britain took about 15 years to
recover. For those on the "winning" side, it wasn't just war damage, it
was also prodigious sums of money owed to the USA. You don't seem to
have much idea about how things were after the War.
>
>> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
>> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
>
> That last didn't happen either.
although I would not have wanted to live in either country before the
middle 50s. Without American help, of course, they would still be as
backward as Romania still is.
--
Robert Bannister
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>
>>> I saw a post referencing this article
>
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>>>
>
>>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>>> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>>> unemployment.
>
>> There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the
>>> I saw a post referencing this article
>
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>>>
>
>>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>
>>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there
>>> was significant upward mobility into the middle class and low
>>> unemployment.
>
>> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
>> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
>> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
>
> That last is just plain wrong with all but a couple of countrys.
Stone Age is an exaggeration, but Britain took about 15 years to
recover. For those on the "winning" side, it wasn't just war damage, it
was also prodigious sums of money owed to the USA. You don't seem to
have much idea about how things were after the War.
>
>> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
>> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
>
> That last didn't happen either.
>
>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>
> And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
> japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
Yes. With American aid, they became the real winners of the war,
>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>
> And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
> japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
although I would not have wanted to live in either country before the
middle 50s. Without American help, of course, they would still be as
backward as Romania still is.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Jun 15, 2012, 7:49:03 PM6/15/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Rikishi42
Jun 15, 2012, 5:45:14 PM6/15/12
to
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
Doesn't justify them. Proper (patent free) research funding and free (as in
beer) education gets you there, if just a tad slower.
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
On 2012-06-15, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>
>>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>>
>>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>>
>>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>>
>>>It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
>>>
>>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>>
>>
>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>> NFL...
>>
> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
> injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
> *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
> control technology, too.
Arguably, so has Guantano Bay. And Abu Graib.
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
> news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>
>>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>>
>>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>>
>>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>>
>>>It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
>>>
>>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>>
>>
>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>> NFL...
>>
> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
> injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
> *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>
> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
> control technology, too.
Doesn't justify them. Proper (patent free) research funding and free (as in
beer) education gets you there, if just a tad slower.
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
Dave Garland
Jun 15, 2012, 8:02:31 PM6/15/12
to
On 6/15/2012 6:20 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being able to
> kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that is
> pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
> population as well. It's not fair.
When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being able to
> kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that is
> pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
> population as well. It's not fair.
is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
things immensely.
Pity it won't be the guy in a trailer in San Diego who flew the drone
that snuffed a wedding party, though.
Armies of occupation don't ever get much respect.
Dave
David Johnston
Jun 15, 2012, 8:20:50 PM6/15/12
to
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 8:37:19 PM6/15/12
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>>>>> NFL...
>>>> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>>> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>>>> traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>>>> contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>>>> and secure remote control technology, too.
>>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>>> technology give us.
>> It will indeed, particularly with pilotless aircraft used for
>> all sorts of things.
>>> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
>>> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
>> That's not right. You only get that result because the drones
>> are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being
> able to kill them with no possibility of them killing any
> of us that is pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but
> their civilian population as well. It's not fair.
I don’t buy that line. There is no possibility of those on
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>>>>> NFL...
>>>> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>>> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>>>> traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>>>> contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology
>>>> and secure remote control technology, too.
>>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>>> technology give us.
>> It will indeed, particularly with pilotless aircraft used for
>> all sorts of things.
>>> Right now, it appears that killing people with drones makes
>>> us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs.
>> That's not right. You only get that result because the drones
>> are used a lot more than bombing from piloted aircraft
> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being
> able to kill them with no possibility of them killing any
> of us that is pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but
> their civilian population as well. It's not fair.
the ground killing anyone with a piloted aircraft either.
None of the stupid palestinians have ever been
able to do anything about them getting fucked
over from the air from manned aircraft.
>>> But that's the nature of any new technology
>>> removing the killing from being more macho.
>> That's not right either.
> It may not be right, but it's certainly correct (for some cultures, not
> all).
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 8:46:11 PM6/15/12
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote
> but Britain took about 15 years to recover.
That's a different matter entirely to his original claim.
> For those on the "winning" side, it wasn't just war damage, it was also
> prodigious sums of money owed to the USA.
Its much more complicated than that, most obviously
with the Marshall Plan.
> You don't seem to have much idea about how things were after the War.
Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
NO ONE was ever bombed back to the stone age,
or anything like it, even germany or japan.
Vietnam wasn't either. Its not even possible.
>>> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
>>> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
>> That last didn't happen either.
>>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>> And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>> japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
> Yes. With American aid, they became the real winners of the war,
That's very arguable. America itself was much more of the real winner.
> although I would not have wanted to live in either country before the
> middle 50s.
Sure, there were certainly plenty of other much better places to live.
Even britain wasn't that flash what with rationing continuing etc.
> Without American help, of course, they would still be as backward as
> Romania still is.
I doubt it with either. Germany would certainly have
rebuilt their industry in west germany and even did
that in east germany which got no american help at all.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>>> I saw a post referencing this article
>>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-
>>>> civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>>>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>>>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>>>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>>>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there was
>>>> significant upward mobility into the middle class and low unemployment.
>>> There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the
>>> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
>>> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
>>> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
>> That last is just plain wrong with all but a couple of countrys.
> Stone Age is an exaggeration,
Sure, but nothing like that happened even with germany and japan.
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>>> I saw a post referencing this article
>>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/other-than-in-computers-
>>>> civilization-basically-stopped-progressing-in-the-1960s-2012-6
>>>> in alt.folklore.computers (to which this is also crossposted).
>>>> This bears out something I've been claiming; that since about 1968,
>>>> we've basically been in a long-drawn-out economic downturn. As opposed
>>>> to the "normal" conditions of the postwar economic boom where there was
>>>> significant upward mobility into the middle class and low unemployment.
>>> There was a world war. A pair of them, actually. Along the
>>> way, the productive capacity of just about every industrial
>>> nation on the planet except for America and a few pink
>>> countries was bombed back to the stone age.
>> That last is just plain wrong with all but a couple of countrys.
> Stone Age is an exaggeration,
> but Britain took about 15 years to recover.
> For those on the "winning" side, it wasn't just war damage, it was also
> prodigious sums of money owed to the USA.
with the Marshall Plan.
> You don't seem to have much idea about how things were after the War.
NO ONE was ever bombed back to the stone age,
or anything like it, even germany or japan.
Vietnam wasn't either. Its not even possible.
>>> It's easy to win the game if you have factories
>>> and the other guys have to go back to horses.
>> That last didn't happen either.
>>> So the recession since 68 is the reversion to normal
>>> after twenty years of being the only game in town.
>> And that is just plain wrong too. Both german and
>> japanese industry got rebuilt LONG before that.
> Yes. With American aid, they became the real winners of the war,
> although I would not have wanted to live in either country before the
> middle 50s.
Even britain wasn't that flash what with rationing continuing etc.
> Without American help, of course, they would still be as backward as
> Romania still is.
rebuilt their industry in west germany and even did
that in east germany which got no american help at all.
Rod Speed
Jun 15, 2012, 8:48:36 PM6/15/12
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote
Depends on what you mean by WE,
And we certainly havent WAITED FOR A WAR to do that technology stuff anyway.
And we certainly havent WAITED FOR A WAR to do that technology stuff anyway.
Dimensional Traveler
Jun 15, 2012, 9:53:56 PM6/15/12
to
On 6/15/2012 8:05 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Joe Makowiec<mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
>>> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
>>> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
>>> years, not just computing.
>>
>> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
>> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
>> byproduct of the cold war.
>
> Perhaps - but they don't seem to have slowed down or ground to a
> halt in the last 20 years since the cold war ended.
>
WWII and the Cold War between them last two generations. That's long
enough to "set" it as "normal" in people's minds.
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Joe Makowiec<mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
>>> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
>>> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
>>> years, not just computing.
>>
>> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
>> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
>> byproduct of the cold war.
>
> Perhaps - but they don't seem to have slowed down or ground to a
> halt in the last 20 years since the cold war ended.
>
WWII and the Cold War between them last two generations. That's long
enough to "set" it as "normal" in people's minds.
Dimensional Traveler
Jun 15, 2012, 10:03:58 PM6/15/12
to
missile.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 15, 2012, 9:44:38 PM6/15/12
to
On Friday, June 15, 2012 4:40:18 PM UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 1:14 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> > development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> > peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> > address.
>
> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci...
>
> > A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
> > development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
> > peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
> > address.
>
> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
Andrew Swallow
Jun 15, 2012, 10:20:11 PM6/15/12
to
On 15/06/2012 14:12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
> improving since WWII not just computing.
>
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made vast
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>
> Sure, we're seeing a stagnation in development.
>
A stagnation in development is to be expected - the Cold War is over.
Although the anti-terrorism weapons developed for Iraq and Afghanistan
will soon be spun off, keep an eye on robotics and body armour.
Andrew Swallow
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>
> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>
> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
> improving since WWII not just computing.
>
> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then look
> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made vast
> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>
> Sure, we're seeing a stagnation in development.
>
A stagnation in development is to be expected - the Cold War is over.
Although the anti-terrorism weapons developed for Iraq and Afghanistan
will soon be spun off, keep an eye on robotics and body armour.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Jun 15, 2012, 10:26:35 PM6/15/12
to
On 15/06/2012 22:33, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
> give us. Right now, it appears that killing people with drones
> makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs. But
> that's the nature of any new technology removing the killing from
> being more macho.
>
Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win. We can kill
>
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
> give us. Right now, it appears that killing people with drones
> makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs. But
> that's the nature of any new technology removing the killing from
> being more macho.
>
them but they cannot kill us.
Andrew Swallow
Quadibloc
Jun 15, 2012, 10:27:14 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 15, 6:02 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
> things immensely.
It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones; I
> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
> things immensely.
assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
If there are more attacks on the civilian population of the United
States, the response will be significantly greater than that to the
events of September 11, because the American people will have run out
of patience.
For the weak to anger the strong is not wise.
And this whole problem began because too many Muslims seem to think
they can abuse Jews, Coptic Christians, Hindus, and whoever else as
much as they like - but if any of them respond by seceding from Muslim
rule, it's an outrage.
And in 1973, *during the Cold War*, they imposed an oil embargo on the
Western world, affecting its operational capabilities, in the service
of their petty quarrel with Israel. To risk dooming humanity to a
nightmare of Communist slavery is treason against humanity. It's not
as if the Arab world was entirely on the right side of history in the
conflict with the Nazis either.
If the Islamic world doesn't get the idea through its head that the
only way to live peacefully side by side with people of other
religions is under conditions of reciprocity and full equality, it
will continue to experience reverses. As it would deserve to under
such a condition.
John Savard
Andrew Swallow
Jun 15, 2012, 10:33:13 PM6/15/12
to
Weapon development started during the war continues for a few years
afterwards. Radios were added, better instrumentation, more reliability
and larger aircraft.
Andrew Swallow
Howard Brazee
Jun 15, 2012, 10:54:37 PM6/15/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
The US isn't legally at war, according to the U.S. Constitution.
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
Kip Williams
Jun 15, 2012, 10:58:50 PM6/15/12
to
drones will be unconscionable.
Kip W
rasfw
Dave Garland
Jun 15, 2012, 11:04:19 PM6/15/12
to
On 6/15/2012 9:27 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Jun 15, 6:02 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
>> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
>> things immensely.
>
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones; I
> assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
I'm not sure what you mean.. if you assume that no individual in the
> On Jun 15, 6:02 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
>> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
>> things immensely.
>
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones; I
> assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
US military is careless, you're a fool.
But let's use accurate English. If the drone operator slips and hits
the wrong button, or the drone malfunctions, that's an accident. If
the drone operator carefully targets a civilian group and fires at
them, it might be careless, or negligent, or any other of a number of
things, but it's not an accident.
John Hinkley hitting James Brady when he was trying to shoot Ronald
Reagan, that was an accident.
Dave
Dave Garland
Jun 15, 2012, 11:30:01 PM6/15/12
to
On 6/15/2012 9:26 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win. We can kill
> them but they cannot kill us.
Until they have drones too. What's it take? An R/C aircraft, a
> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win. We can kill
> them but they cannot kill us.
Raspberry Pi or Arduino computer to make it autonomous enough so that
it can't be killed by jamming, a payload. What do you figure, a couple
of years? This isn't the atom bomb, this is mostly stuff anybody with
a credit card can order, except for the programming.
David Johnston
Jun 16, 2012, 12:06:38 AM6/16/12
to
On 6/15/2012 8:27 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Jun 15, 6:02 pm, Dave Garland<dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
>> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
>> things immensely.
>
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
They aren't accidental. They're incidental.
> On Jun 15, 6:02 pm, Dave Garland<dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get even
>> is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will improve
>> things immensely.
>
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
Doug Wickström
Jun 16, 2012, 12:16:40 AM6/16/12
to
Europe.
Japan's economic recovery was mostly the result of the Korean
War.
--
Doug Wickström
Patrick Scheible
Jun 16, 2012, 12:14:58 AM6/16/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:15:07 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Cropdusters are well-known as some of the riskiest flying; they could be
done safely controlled from the ground, and more efficiently from not
having to carry the pilot.
Search and rescue operations in the wilderness are now conducted by
helicopter. But the helicopters can't be risked at night or in bad
weather. Maybe drones could. And drones, not having to carry a pilot
and observer, might be able to fly closer to the ground and see things
the observer would miss. They aren't big enough now to carry away an
injured climber, but they might be able to drop supplies.
-- Patrick
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:15:07 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>>> NFL...
>>>
>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>
>>Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
>>control technology, too.
>
>
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of the
>>> NFL...
>>>
>>The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>>substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme traumatic
>>injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to contribute
>>*significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>
>>Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure remote
>>control technology, too.
>
> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone technology
> give us. Right now, it appears that killing people with drones
> makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs. But
> that's the nature of any new technology removing the killing from
> being more macho.
I can imagine quite a few possible applications.
> give us. Right now, it appears that killing people with drones
> makes us a lot more unpopular than killing people with bombs. But
> that's the nature of any new technology removing the killing from
> being more macho.
Cropdusters are well-known as some of the riskiest flying; they could be
done safely controlled from the ground, and more efficiently from not
having to carry the pilot.
Search and rescue operations in the wilderness are now conducted by
helicopter. But the helicopters can't be risked at night or in bad
weather. Maybe drones could. And drones, not having to carry a pilot
and observer, might be able to fly closer to the ground and see things
the observer would miss. They aren't big enough now to carry away an
injured climber, but they might be able to drop supplies.
-- Patrick
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 12:40:14 AM6/16/12
to
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote
Everything to do with technology getting up one hell of a head
of steam, particularly with the invention of computers and the
effect that had on the vast bulk of technology eventually.
Not just due to computers tho, even just electrical power
made one hell of a difference to almost everything too.
Its interesting to wander around vintage machinery field
days and see what used to be required even just to move
stuff like the whey from the dairy to the piggery, something
we do completely routinely now with an electrically powered
pump that used to need a decent sized engine you couldn't
lift by yourself etc. None of that had anything to do with war.
Neither did most modern medicine either except surgery.
The original article is as someone else said, just plain silly.
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>> Joe Makowiec<mako...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
>>>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days
>>>> when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of course,
>>>> everything connected to or affected by electronics has
>>>> improved vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing.
>>> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and
>>> (micro)electronics are arguably byproducts of the space
>>> race, which in its turn is a byproduct of the cold war.
>> Perhaps - but they don't seem to have slowed down or ground
>> to a halt in the last 20 years since the cold war ended.
> WWII and the Cold War between them last two generations.
> That's long enough to "set" it as "normal" in people's minds.
I don't believe that it has anything to do with people's minds.
>>>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days
>>>> when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of course,
>>>> everything connected to or affected by electronics has
>>>> improved vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing.
>>> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and
>>> (micro)electronics are arguably byproducts of the space
>>> race, which in its turn is a byproduct of the cold war.
>> Perhaps - but they don't seem to have slowed down or ground
>> to a halt in the last 20 years since the cold war ended.
> WWII and the Cold War between them last two generations.
> That's long enough to "set" it as "normal" in people's minds.
Everything to do with technology getting up one hell of a head
of steam, particularly with the invention of computers and the
effect that had on the vast bulk of technology eventually.
Not just due to computers tho, even just electrical power
made one hell of a difference to almost everything too.
Its interesting to wander around vintage machinery field
days and see what used to be required even just to move
stuff like the whey from the dairy to the piggery, something
we do completely routinely now with an electrically powered
pump that used to need a decent sized engine you couldn't
lift by yourself etc. None of that had anything to do with war.
Neither did most modern medicine either except surgery.
The original article is as someone else said, just plain silly.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 12:45:49 AM6/16/12
to
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote
Corse I have. The practical reality is that those who end up
as the targets of drones don’t actually use them against either
the drones or the piloted aircraft the Israelis use to fuck over
the palestinians from the air with piloted aircraft so the
objection some have to drone strikes has nothing to do
with the fact that they cant hit back, everything to do with
the fact that they end up getting used to wipe out weddings
etc occasionally. That’s just as true of the piloted bombings
too when that sort of thing happened in Iraq etc.
as the targets of drones don’t actually use them against either
the drones or the piloted aircraft the Israelis use to fuck over
the palestinians from the air with piloted aircraft so the
objection some have to drone strikes has nothing to do
with the fact that they cant hit back, everything to do with
the fact that they end up getting used to wipe out weddings
etc occasionally. That’s just as true of the piloted bombings
too when that sort of thing happened in Iraq etc.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jun 16, 2012, 12:50:27 AM6/16/12
to
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 12:51:30 AM6/16/12
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote
We arent, actually, most obviously with the internet, communications etc.
What we are actually seeing is just SOME technology maturing.
> A stagnation in development is to be expected - the Cold War is over.
Hasn't produced any stagnation at all in the use of the
net, or with stuff like ipods, tablets, cellphones etc etc etc.
> Although the anti-terrorism weapons developed for Iraq and Afghanistan
> will soon be spun off,
Particularly with pilotless drones.
> keep an eye on robotics and body armour.
Body armour hasn't progressed much at all.
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
What we are actually seeing is just SOME technology maturing.
> A stagnation in development is to be expected - the Cold War is over.
net, or with stuff like ipods, tablets, cellphones etc etc etc.
> Although the anti-terrorism weapons developed for Iraq and Afghanistan
> will soon be spun off,
> keep an eye on robotics and body armour.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 12:54:48 AM6/16/12
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote
win once the west pulls out of Afghanistan.
> We can kill them but they cannot kill us.
Corse they can kill us with stuff like the London bombings etc.
And there is fuck all we can actually do about that sort of killing too.
And its incredibly expensive to try to keep
track of who might do something like that.
> Howard Brazee wrote
>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>> technology give us. Right now, it appears that killing
>> people with drones makes us a lot more unpopular than
>> killing people with bombs. But that's the nature of any new
>> technology removing the killing from being more macho.
> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win.
Like hell they do. The Talibums will in fact
>> It will be interesting to see what costs and benefits drone
>> technology give us. Right now, it appears that killing
>> people with drones makes us a lot more unpopular than
>> killing people with bombs. But that's the nature of any new
>> technology removing the killing from being more macho.
> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win.
win once the west pulls out of Afghanistan.
> We can kill them but they cannot kill us.
And there is fuck all we can actually do about that sort of killing too.
And its incredibly expensive to try to keep
track of who might do something like that.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Jun 16, 2012, 12:55:28 AM6/16/12
to
openpilot.org. So I'd say over the shelf today, adding weapons shouldn't be
hard.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 1:10:56 AM6/16/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
with hits from the air on senior figures in Al Qaida etc.
> If there are more attacks on the civilian population
> of the United States, the response will be significantly
> greater than that to the events of September 11,
I doubt it, essentially because its very difficult to work
out who to strike when it happens like with the London
bombings etc.
Even if it becomes obvious it was paid for by Iran,
I doubt we'd see it fucked over like Iraq was now.
> because the American people will have run out of patience.
Sure, but it's a lot easier to say than do something useful.
> For the weak to anger the strong is not wise.
Yes, that was certainly true of the Talibums in Afghanistan.
> And this whole problem began because too many
> Muslims seem to think they can abuse Jews, Coptic
> Christians, Hindus, and whoever else as much as they like
In many ways they are just doing what christians used to do once.
As usual, they are stuck in the old mentality that the
west has moved past a hell of a long time ago now.
They havent even managed to work out the importance
of the separation of church and state yet.
Or actually being stupid enough to let kings rule the roost either.
> - but if any of them respond by seceding
> from Muslim rule, it's an outrage.
Just like the US civil war eh ?
> And in 1973, *during the Cold War*, they imposed an oil
> embargo on the Western world, affecting its operational
> capabilities, in the service of their petty quarrel with Israel.
OPEC was always about much more than that.
They eventually managed to realise that economically
crippling the west wouldn't do themselves any good.
> To risk dooming humanity to a nightmare of
> Communist slavery is treason against humanity.
Not sure what this is about.
> It's not as if the Arab world was entirely on the right
> side of history in the conflict with the Nazis either.
> If the Islamic world doesn't get the idea through
> its head that the only way to live peacefully side
> by side with people of other religions is under
> conditions of reciprocity and full equality,
We don't do that ourselves with moslems.
> it will continue to experience reverses.
We'll see...
> Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only
>> way to get even is to kill _our_ civilian population,
>> I'm sure that will improve things immensely.
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
> I assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
Yeah, it is in fact surprising how few mistakes they make, particularly
>> When their civilian population realizes that the only
>> way to get even is to kill _our_ civilian population,
>> I'm sure that will improve things immensely.
> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
> I assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
with hits from the air on senior figures in Al Qaida etc.
> If there are more attacks on the civilian population
> of the United States, the response will be significantly
> greater than that to the events of September 11,
out who to strike when it happens like with the London
bombings etc.
Even if it becomes obvious it was paid for by Iran,
I doubt we'd see it fucked over like Iraq was now.
> because the American people will have run out of patience.
> For the weak to anger the strong is not wise.
> And this whole problem began because too many
> Muslims seem to think they can abuse Jews, Coptic
> Christians, Hindus, and whoever else as much as they like
As usual, they are stuck in the old mentality that the
west has moved past a hell of a long time ago now.
They havent even managed to work out the importance
of the separation of church and state yet.
Or actually being stupid enough to let kings rule the roost either.
> - but if any of them respond by seceding
> from Muslim rule, it's an outrage.
> And in 1973, *during the Cold War*, they imposed an oil
> embargo on the Western world, affecting its operational
> capabilities, in the service of their petty quarrel with Israel.
They eventually managed to realise that economically
crippling the west wouldn't do themselves any good.
> To risk dooming humanity to a nightmare of
> Communist slavery is treason against humanity.
> It's not as if the Arab world was entirely on the right
> side of history in the conflict with the Nazis either.
> If the Islamic world doesn't get the idea through
> its head that the only way to live peacefully side
> by side with people of other religions is under
> conditions of reciprocity and full equality,
> it will continue to experience reverses.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 1:20:51 AM6/16/12
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
> Quadibloc wrote
> if you assume that no individual in the
> US military is careless, you're a fool.
Depends on what you mean by careless.
Clearly if a wedding celebration was targeted someone fucked up.
> But let's use accurate English. If the drone operator slips and hits
> the wrong button, or the drone malfunctions, that's an accident.
Its unlikely that many of them are due to that sort of thing.
> If the drone operator carefully targets a civilian group
> and fires at them, it might be careless, or negligent, or
> any other of a number of things, but it's not an accident.
Yes, but the individual that produced the strike on a wedding
celebration where lots were firing guns in the air to celebrate
the wedding can be accurately described as careless.
> Quadibloc wrote
>> Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>>> When their civilian population realizes that the only
>>> way to get even is to kill _our_ civilian population,
>>> I'm sure that will improve things immensely.
>> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
>> I assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
> I'm not sure what you mean..
Presumably he means that they do attempt to not target civilians.
>>> When their civilian population realizes that the only
>>> way to get even is to kill _our_ civilian population,
>>> I'm sure that will improve things immensely.
>> It is regrettable that accidental casualties occur in war zones;
>> I assume that the U.S. military is not being careless, however.
> I'm not sure what you mean..
> if you assume that no individual in the
> US military is careless, you're a fool.
Clearly if a wedding celebration was targeted someone fucked up.
> But let's use accurate English. If the drone operator slips and hits
> the wrong button, or the drone malfunctions, that's an accident.
> If the drone operator carefully targets a civilian group
> and fires at them, it might be careless, or negligent, or
> any other of a number of things, but it's not an accident.
celebration where lots were firing guns in the air to celebrate
the wedding can be accurately described as careless.
Andrew Swallow
Jun 16, 2012, 2:48:10 AM6/16/12
to
On 16/06/2012 03:54, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
>
> The US isn't legally at war, according to the U.S. Constitution.
>
Congress formally authorised the fighting. It just did not call it a war.
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:49:03 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
>
> The US isn't legally at war, according to the U.S. Constitution.
>
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Jun 16, 2012, 2:52:52 AM6/16/12
to
Britain and the USA's logistics.
The 9/11 attack used civilian logistics, further use these have now been
denied.
Andrew Swallow
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 3:35:13 AM6/16/12
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote
> Dave Garland wrote
> They cannot match Britain and the USA's logistics.
They wouldn't need to.
> The 9/11 attack used civilian logistics,
And droids by terrorists wouldn't need to.
> further use these have now been denied.
Not possible to deny them to terrorist droids.
> Dave Garland wrote
>> Andrew Swallow wrote
>>> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win.
>>> We can kill them but they cannot kill us.
>> Until they have drones too. What's it take? An R/C aircraft, a Raspberry
>> Pi or Arduino computer to make it autonomous enough so that it can't
>> be killed by jamming, a payload. What do you figure, a couple of years?
>> This isn't the atom bomb, this is mostly stuff anybody with a credit
>> card can order, except for the programming.
> It also needs an airfield that they can defend.
Not if they are used like cruise missiles, flown into the target.
>>> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win.
>>> We can kill them but they cannot kill us.
>> Until they have drones too. What's it take? An R/C aircraft, a Raspberry
>> Pi or Arduino computer to make it autonomous enough so that it can't
>> be killed by jamming, a payload. What do you figure, a couple of years?
>> This isn't the atom bomb, this is mostly stuff anybody with a credit
>> card can order, except for the programming.
> It also needs an airfield that they can defend.
> They cannot match Britain and the USA's logistics.
> The 9/11 attack used civilian logistics,
> further use these have now been denied.
ppint. at pplay
Jun 16, 2012, 4:04:35 AM6/16/12
to
- hi; in article, <jrga5u$mbh$1...@dont-email.me>,
davidjo...@block.com "David Johnston" asked:
carry three or four times the load for many times longer, and
higher, were more robustly built, more stable and more safely
manoeuverable (with one famously successful exception), with
maybe four to six times as powerful, and much more reliable,
engines. and that's just the single-engined aeroplanes.
by the end of the war, multi-engined aircraft existed which
were capable of being converted to civilian use as passenger-
and mail-carriers on regularly-scheduled international routes.
- love, a ppint. wondering whether biggles books're unknown
to modern merkin youth, to fire their interest in matters
aeronautical, and their spirit of adventure more generally
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"There's something wrong with the world. I'm becoming a hazy memory."
- C.Speed, the ultimate velocipractor, on alt.sex.reptiles 11/2/98
davidjo...@block.com "David Johnston" asked:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>>A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>>>development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>>>>peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>>>>address.
>>>Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>
>Just how much better were aircraft at the end of World War I versus the
>start? (Ignoring purely military applications like figuring out how to
>shoot through a propeller.)
- vastly. they were up to four or five times faster, could
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>>A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending on research and
>>>>development in many areas, at least some of which have useful
>>>>peacetime applications that the market would have found difficult to
>>>>address.
>>>Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>
>Just how much better were aircraft at the end of World War I versus the
>start? (Ignoring purely military applications like figuring out how to
>shoot through a propeller.)
carry three or four times the load for many times longer, and
higher, were more robustly built, more stable and more safely
manoeuverable (with one famously successful exception), with
maybe four to six times as powerful, and much more reliable,
engines. and that's just the single-engined aeroplanes.
by the end of the war, multi-engined aircraft existed which
were capable of being converted to civilian use as passenger-
and mail-carriers on regularly-scheduled international routes.
- love, a ppint. wondering whether biggles books're unknown
to modern merkin youth, to fire their interest in matters
aeronautical, and their spirit of adventure more generally
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"There's something wrong with the world. I'm becoming a hazy memory."
- C.Speed, the ultimate velocipractor, on alt.sex.reptiles 11/2/98
ppint. at pplay
Jun 16, 2012, 4:30:41 AM6/16/12
to
- hi; in article, <jrgjfn$e12$2...@dont-email.me>,
davidjo...@block.com "David Johnston" averred:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>>>and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until there _is_ a
>>>>war to make an effort to advance technology.
>>>We havent waited for a war for a long time now.
- whatever happened to the [a] war[s] upon intangibles? (- [b][c])
- love, ppint.
[a] - various [b] - emwltk
[c] - severally and/or collectively
[s] - ceci n'est pas une note a pied
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
[s] - "c'est magnifique - mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
- marshal pierre bosquet
observing the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
davidjo...@block.com "David Johnston" averred:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>>>>and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until there _is_ a
>>>>war to make an effort to advance technology.
>>>We havent waited for a war for a long time now.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
>
>If he is, he's right.
>>Are you suggesting that we are not at war right now?
>
- whatever happened to the [a] war[s] upon intangibles? (- [b][c])
- love, ppint.
[a] - various [b] - emwltk
[c] - severally and/or collectively
[s] - ceci n'est pas une note a pied
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
- marshal pierre bosquet
observing the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jun 16, 2012, 4:45:25 AM6/16/12
to
In article <a41ddf...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
(Rod Speed) wrote:
> Sure, but plenty of other technology seen in WW2 like nukes had not.
>
> Computers for code breaking either.
The required work for nuclear weapons had been done before the war. The
war just provided funding for actual implementation.
> That_s not right either with the development of
> modern disposable automatics like the Owen gun.
All modern rapid fire weapons are either automatic or mechanical. In
all cases example of those in use can be found in the 19th century if
not earlier.
> That_s not right either.
They patented blowback, gas operation and recoil operation. Gatling
Agar and people I can not be bothered to look up patented just about
every possible system involving outside power.
The point is that war does not produce new ideas it provides the funds
to try stuff that woud not have been developed as not cost effective.
The first armoured vehicles were used during the second Boer War.
Ken Young
(Rod Speed) wrote:
> Sure, but plenty of other technology seen in WW2 like nukes had not.
>
> Computers for code breaking either.
The required work for nuclear weapons had been done before the war. The
war just provided funding for actual implementation.
> That_s not right either with the development of
> modern disposable automatics like the Owen gun.
All modern rapid fire weapons are either automatic or mechanical. In
all cases example of those in use can be found in the 19th century if
not earlier.
> That_s not right either.
They patented blowback, gas operation and recoil operation. Gatling
Agar and people I can not be bothered to look up patented just about
every possible system involving outside power.
The point is that war does not produce new ideas it provides the funds
to try stuff that woud not have been developed as not cost effective.
The first armoured vehicles were used during the second Boer War.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jun 16, 2012, 4:45:26 AM6/16/12
to
In article <a41egi...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
engines. They were made bigger and with better output. Airofoils and
construction did not change. As for surgery I would like references.
> It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
> of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
A better way of doing something that goes back to Napoleon who set up
ambulance corps.
Ken Young
(Rod Speed) wrote:
> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
No basic research in either. The major improvement in aircraft was
> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
engines. They were made bigger and with better output. Airofoils and
construction did not change. As for surgery I would like references.
> It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
> of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
A better way of doing something that goes back to Napoleon who set up
ambulance corps.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jun 16, 2012, 4:45:26 AM6/16/12
to
In article
<21739834-3f7f-47ed...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals. The idea war speeds
progress is dangerous. I happen to study military history and weapons
and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
Ken Young
<21739834-3f7f-47ed...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote:
> and so what we *really* need to do is
> stop waiting until there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance
> technology.
Check out when actual technical innovations were made in anything. The
> and so what we *really* need to do is
> stop waiting until there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance
> technology.
only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals. The idea war speeds
progress is dangerous. I happen to study military history and weapons
and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
Ken Young
Nick Spalding
Jun 16, 2012, 5:30:39 AM6/16/12
to
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote, in
<__ednV_n_8k72kHSn...@giganews.com>
on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:45:26 -0500:
When people have time to think.
--
Nick Spalding
<__ednV_n_8k72kHSn...@giganews.com>
on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:45:26 -0500:
--
Nick Spalding
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 5:43:49 AM6/16/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
the theory had been developed by then.
> The war just provided funding for actual implementation.
Its much more complicated than that.
>>> Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
>> That's not right either with the development of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm
> In all cases example of those in use can
> be found in the 19th century if not earlier.
Not with modern disposable automatics or with Metal Storm either.
>>> Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
>> That's not right either.
> They patented blowback, gas operation and recoil operation.
> Gatling Agar and people I can not be bothered to look up
> patented just about every possible system involving outside power.
But nothing like Metal Storm.
> The point is that war does not produce new ideas
Sometimes it does. Most obviously with the tank and submarine.
> it provides the funds to try stuff that woud
> not have been developed as not cost effective.
It does that TOO.
> The first armoured vehicles were used during the second Boer War.
And no one bothered with armoured vehicles for other than war before that.
> rod.sp...@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
>> Sure, but plenty of other technology seen in WW2 like nukes had not.
>> Computers for code breaking either.
> The required work for nuclear weapons had been done before the war.
Nope. It would be more accurate to say that
>> Sure, but plenty of other technology seen in WW2 like nukes had not.
>> Computers for code breaking either.
> The required work for nuclear weapons had been done before the war.
the theory had been developed by then.
> The war just provided funding for actual implementation.
>>> Automatic weapons all trace from pre WW1 designs.
>> That's not right either with the development of
>> modern disposable automatics like the Owen gun.
> All modern rapid fire weapons are either automatic or mechanical.
That’s just plain wrong with Metal Storm
> All modern rapid fire weapons are either automatic or mechanical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm
> In all cases example of those in use can
> be found in the 19th century if not earlier.
>>> Between them Maxim and Browning patented every possible mechanism.
>> That's not right either.
> They patented blowback, gas operation and recoil operation.
> Gatling Agar and people I can not be bothered to look up
> patented just about every possible system involving outside power.
> The point is that war does not produce new ideas
> it provides the funds to try stuff that woud
> not have been developed as not cost effective.
> The first armoured vehicles were used during the second Boer War.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 5:50:01 AM6/16/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
Most obviously what happened at Bletchley, lots of medical
technical innovations in medicine in WW1 and WW2, lots
of technical innovations with bombing in WW2 and with
direction finding and radar etc etc etc too.
> The idea war speeds progress is dangerous.
Nope, its accurate.
> I happen to study military history and weapons
But can't get the basics right.
> and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
That is just plain wrong on the speed of technical development seen in
wartime.
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote
>> and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until
>> there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance technology.
> Check out when actual technical innovations were made in anything.
> The only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
> Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals.
There were a hell of a lot more than just that one.
>> and so what we *really* need to do is stop waiting until
>> there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance technology.
> Check out when actual technical innovations were made in anything.
> The only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
> Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals.
Most obviously what happened at Bletchley, lots of medical
technical innovations in medicine in WW1 and WW2, lots
of technical innovations with bombing in WW2 and with
direction finding and radar etc etc etc too.
> The idea war speeds progress is dangerous.
> I happen to study military history and weapons
> and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
wartime.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 6:06:43 AM6/16/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> rod.sp...@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
> The major improvement in aircraft was engines.
There were a lot more major improvements
with aircraft in WW1 than just with engines.
And there clearly was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT with those anyway.
> They were made bigger and with better output.
There was much more involved than just that too.
And there clearly was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT with those.
> Airofoils and construction did not change.
Wrong. We saw the first lack of wires to hold it all together etc.
> As for surgery I would like references.
Then go and find them for yourself.
It should be obvious that the immense numbers of
battle casualtys must have some effect on surgery
techniques in everything from the US civil war thru
to the first major industrial war, WW1.
>> It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>> of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
> A better way of doing something that goes back
> to Napoleon who set up ambulance corps.
Not using choppers he didn’t.
Using that line of yours, no advance was ever seen in anything
at all during wartime because we had seen medicine back in
the time of the ancient greeks and before that.
That line is completely silly.
You'll next try to claim that even shields
and artillery had nothing to do with war.
And what was clearly being discussed was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT that clearly does happen in wartime.
> rod.sp...@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>> It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
> No basic research in either.
Wrong with both. And the original didn’t say basic research anyway.
> No basic research in either.
> The major improvement in aircraft was engines.
with aircraft in WW1 than just with engines.
And there clearly was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT with those anyway.
> They were made bigger and with better output.
And there clearly was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT with those.
> Airofoils and construction did not change.
> As for surgery I would like references.
It should be obvious that the immense numbers of
battle casualtys must have some effect on surgery
techniques in everything from the US civil war thru
to the first major industrial war, WW1.
>> It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>> of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
> A better way of doing something that goes back
> to Napoleon who set up ambulance corps.
Using that line of yours, no advance was ever seen in anything
at all during wartime because we had seen medicine back in
the time of the ancient greeks and before that.
That line is completely silly.
You'll next try to claim that even shields
and artillery had nothing to do with war.
And what was clearly being discussed was MASSIVE SPENDING
ON DEVELOPMENT that clearly does happen in wartime.
Rod Speed
Jun 16, 2012, 6:09:57 AM6/16/12
to
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dhkot7t9q2k1okaet...@4ax.com...
Peter Flass
Jun 16, 2012, 8:04:14 AM6/16/12
to
carry out attacks by "blending in" they're just as guilty.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Jun 16, 2012, 8:11:06 AM6/16/12
to
sticks. Radar was around before WW II, but we were basically putzing
around with it. The radar spotter who saw the Japanese planes heading
toward Pearl Harbor comes to mind. The war sped up the development of
Radar as an everyday technology.
--
Pete
Nick Spalding
Jun 16, 2012, 8:12:31 AM6/16/12
to
Peter Flass wrote, in <jrhsmc$a6u$1...@dont-email.me>
on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:11:06 -0400:
>On 6/16/2012 4:45 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article
>> <21739834-3f7f-47ed...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote:
>>
>>> and so what we *really* need to do is
>>> stop waiting until there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance
>>> technology.
>>
>> Check out when actual technical innovations were made in anything. The
>> only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
>> Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals. The idea war speeds
>> progress is dangerous. I happen to study military history and weapons
>> and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
>>
+>A war makes a country throw everything it has at the wall and see what
--
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:11:06 -0400:
>On 6/16/2012 4:45 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article
>> <21739834-3f7f-47ed...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) wrote:
>>
>>> and so what we *really* need to do is
>>> stop waiting until there _is_ a war to make an effort to advance
>>> technology.
>>
>> Check out when actual technical innovations were made in anything. The
>> only example I can come up with in wartime for the Britain is Miss
>> Nightingale and hygiene in military hospitals. The idea war speeds
>> progress is dangerous. I happen to study military history and weapons
>> and most progress in designing weapons is made in peace time.
>>
>sticks. Radar was around before WW II, but we were basically putzing
>around with it. The radar spotter who saw the Japanese planes heading
>toward Pearl Harbor comes to mind. The war sped up the development of
>Radar as an everyday technology.
The British took it a hell of a lot more seriously.
>around with it. The radar spotter who saw the Japanese planes heading
>toward Pearl Harbor comes to mind. The war sped up the development of
>Radar as an everyday technology.
--
Nick Spalding
David Johnston
Jun 16, 2012, 9:18:45 AM6/16/12
to
On 6/15/2012 7:51 AM, Joe Makowiec wrote:
Calling it one was a metaphor, not a description.
> On 15 Jun 2012 in alt.folklore.computers, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
>> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
>> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
>> years, not just computing.
>
>
>> Materials technology has made vast changes since the days when nylon
>> and bakelite were impressive. also, of course, everything connected
>> to or affected by electronics has improved vastly over the last 50
>> years, not just computing.
>
> Yabbut... Many of the developments in materials and (micro)electronics
> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
> byproduct of the cold war.
>
Do you know why they called it a "cold" war? Because it wasn't a war.
> are arguably byproducts of the space race, which in its turn is a
> byproduct of the cold war.
>
Calling it one was a metaphor, not a description.
David Johnston
Jun 16, 2012, 9:20:15 AM6/16/12
to
robbers and rapists hide in our midst.
Walter Bushell
Jun 16, 2012, 10:03:18 AM6/16/12
to
In article <jri167$222$2...@dont-email.me>,
And telling the occupation forces about the Taliban is bad for your
health, not to mention the health of your family.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
health, not to mention the health of your family.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Ibmekon
Jun 16, 2012, 10:05:52 AM6/16/12
to
As the Vogons told Arthur , before they demolished the Earth.
"The notice of Planning Permission was posted on Alpha Centauri eons
ago "
--from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Carl Goldsworthy
jmfbahciv
Jun 16, 2012, 10:06:41 AM6/16/12
to
Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20120615141239....@eircom.net...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
> But most of them improved by adding computers (heart pacemakers, cars,
> robotic surgery, washing machines, etc.) or by using computers to develop
> them. So in a sense, they are spin-offs of the computer improvements.
It says that computers are finally being used as the tools they were meant
to be and can be used by anyone with an idea. Access to serious computing
is no longer isolated to secret govenment centers nor universities who
do research.
/BAH
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20120615141239....@eircom.net...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:29 -0500
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>>
>> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>>
>> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
>> improving since WWII not just computing.
>>
>> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
>> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
>> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
>> look
>> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
>> yet light enough for one person to lift. Materials technology has made
>>
>>> No war speeds development of existing ideas not basic research. Someone
>>> compared it to a bank account. In peace time you put ideas (basic
>>> research) into the account and during a war you draw things out and hope
>>> you do not hit the overdraft limit.
>>
>> In short peace is good for science, war for technology.
>>
>> Except that it's not really true, many areas of technology have been
>> improving since WWII not just computing.
>>
>> Consider printing, or for a less dramatic example consider a 1960s
>> front-load washing machine with it's slab of concrete for stability and a
>> tendency to shake violently while spinning at a few hundred rpm - then
>> look
>> at a modern one spinning at 1400rpm in near silence with minimal vibration
>> vast
>> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
>> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
>> changes since the days when nylon and bakelite were impressive. also, of
>> course, everything connected to or affected by electronics has improved
>> vastly over the last 50 years, not just computing. Should we turn a blind
>> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
>> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
>> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
>> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
>> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>>
>
> You say that *more* technological areas have improved besides computers.
>> eye to developments in medicine ? The first heart transplant was in 1967,
>> open heart surgery not much older - I recently read of a robotic surgery
>> device intended to enable a surgeon to operate on a beating heart, and of
>> a system of keyhole heart surgery - sounds like progress to me. How about
>> the whole business of 3D printing. I'm barely scratching the surface here.
>>
>
> But most of them improved by adding computers (heart pacemakers, cars,
> robotic surgery, washing machines, etc.) or by using computers to develop
> them. So in a sense, they are spin-offs of the computer improvements.
It says that computers are finally being used as the tools they were meant
to be and can be used by anyone with an idea. Access to serious computing
is no longer isolated to secret govenment centers nor universities who
do research.
/BAH
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jun 16, 2012, 10:24:33 AM6/16/12
to
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:
> Cold War -> (D)ARPA -> Internet, et alia
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#68 Interesting News Article
thread references my original post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#38 Other Than In Computers, Civilization Basically Stopped Progressing In The 1960s
i.e. early defense packet network spawned modern internet.(?)
counter is that by late 70s, there is folklore that tightly integrated
IMPs would periodically get into situations where nearly all the
bandwidth was being used by IMPs exchanging network administrative
trivia.
on the other hand, misc. old email mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#vnet
internal network was larger than the internet from just about the
beginning until sometime late '85 or early '86 ... effort from the
cambridge science center, 4th flr, 545 tech sq. also brought you virtual
machines (cp40 originally done on specially modified 360/40 which
morphed into cp67 when 360/67 with virtual memory standard become
available in 1967, later morphs into vm370), and GML was invented there
in 1969 (a decade later GML morphs into iso standard SGML, and after
another decade morphs into HTML at CERN). misc. past posts mentioning
science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
misc. past posts mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
person responsible for internal network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Hendricks
from above:
In 1976, MIT Professor Jerry Saltzer accompanied Hendricks to DARPA,
where Henricks described his innovations to the principal scientist,
Dr. Vinton P. Cerf. From that point on, Vint and other DARPA scientists
adopted Hendricks' connectionless approach. The result developed into
the Internet as we know it today.[6]
... snip ...
the "cool to be clever" reference in the wiki is also available here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cool-to-be-clever-edson-hendricks/id483020515?mt=8
as well as book from amazon.
the technology basis for the modern internet TCP/IP ... and the ARPANET
had big switch-over from IMP-based to TCP/IP on 1Jan1983. The
operational basis for the modern internet is NSFNET backbone and the
business basis for the modern internet was CIX.
also from the Hendricks wiki item
In the late 1970s, VNET was much larger than the ARPAnet/Internet as
measured in the number of computers connected. In 1981, when the ARPAnet
began converting to TCP/IP, there were about 250 ARPAnet nodes and 1000
VNET nodes.[7] Hendricks and others had proposed the interconnection of
the two networks. Turing Award winner Jim Gray, then at IBM, thought the
VNET/ARPAnet linkup would be "absolutely wonderful -- with no downside
except security risks, which were containable." [8] IBM management
declined.
... snip ...
The "1981" should be "1983". One of the issues was that ARPANET nodes
were IMPs which were tightly controlled by the gov. and there were only
about 100 IMPs at the time of the great switch-over to TCP/IP on
1Jan1983 (with possible 250 connected HOST computers ... i.e. the
computers ran HOST/IMP protocol to talk to the IMPs ... and the IMPs
were the network nodes).
the wiki also cites this old post of mine, regarding the size of the
internal network in 1983:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#8
The virtual machine operating system was also in wide use by a lot of
gov. agencies ... which a lot of us weren't aware of. But another
Hendricks story at the science center ... gone 404, but lives on at the
wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090117083033/http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml
cites reference that can be found in virtual machine & science center
history paper here:
http://web.me.com/melinda.varian/Site/Melinda_Varians_Home_Page.html
for other drift about nsfnet backbone as operational basis for modern
internet ... some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
I was working with several of the organizations leading up to the NSFNET
backbone ... but then when the NSFNET backbone RFP was released,
internal politics preventing me from bidding. The director of the NSF
tried to help by writing a letter to the corporation copying the CEO ...
but that just made the internal politics worse ... as did the comments
about what I already had running was at least five years ahead of all
bid submissions. misc. past posts on the subject:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
other related wiki entries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_VNET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSCS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BITNET
some past posts mentioning BITNET (&/or EARN)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
the european part of BITNET was EARN ... old email from
the person tasked to create EARN
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#email840320
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
> Cold War -> (D)ARPA -> Internet, et alia
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#68 Interesting News Article
thread references my original post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#38 Other Than In Computers, Civilization Basically Stopped Progressing In The 1960s
i.e. early defense packet network spawned modern internet.(?)
counter is that by late 70s, there is folklore that tightly integrated
IMPs would periodically get into situations where nearly all the
bandwidth was being used by IMPs exchanging network administrative
trivia.
on the other hand, misc. old email mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#vnet
internal network was larger than the internet from just about the
beginning until sometime late '85 or early '86 ... effort from the
cambridge science center, 4th flr, 545 tech sq. also brought you virtual
machines (cp40 originally done on specially modified 360/40 which
morphed into cp67 when 360/67 with virtual memory standard become
available in 1967, later morphs into vm370), and GML was invented there
in 1969 (a decade later GML morphs into iso standard SGML, and after
another decade morphs into HTML at CERN). misc. past posts mentioning
science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
misc. past posts mentioning internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
person responsible for internal network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edson_Hendricks
from above:
In 1976, MIT Professor Jerry Saltzer accompanied Hendricks to DARPA,
where Henricks described his innovations to the principal scientist,
Dr. Vinton P. Cerf. From that point on, Vint and other DARPA scientists
adopted Hendricks' connectionless approach. The result developed into
the Internet as we know it today.[6]
... snip ...
the "cool to be clever" reference in the wiki is also available here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cool-to-be-clever-edson-hendricks/id483020515?mt=8
as well as book from amazon.
the technology basis for the modern internet TCP/IP ... and the ARPANET
had big switch-over from IMP-based to TCP/IP on 1Jan1983. The
operational basis for the modern internet is NSFNET backbone and the
business basis for the modern internet was CIX.
also from the Hendricks wiki item
In the late 1970s, VNET was much larger than the ARPAnet/Internet as
measured in the number of computers connected. In 1981, when the ARPAnet
began converting to TCP/IP, there were about 250 ARPAnet nodes and 1000
VNET nodes.[7] Hendricks and others had proposed the interconnection of
the two networks. Turing Award winner Jim Gray, then at IBM, thought the
VNET/ARPAnet linkup would be "absolutely wonderful -- with no downside
except security risks, which were containable." [8] IBM management
declined.
... snip ...
The "1981" should be "1983". One of the issues was that ARPANET nodes
were IMPs which were tightly controlled by the gov. and there were only
about 100 IMPs at the time of the great switch-over to TCP/IP on
1Jan1983 (with possible 250 connected HOST computers ... i.e. the
computers ran HOST/IMP protocol to talk to the IMPs ... and the IMPs
were the network nodes).
the wiki also cites this old post of mine, regarding the size of the
internal network in 1983:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#8
The virtual machine operating system was also in wide use by a lot of
gov. agencies ... which a lot of us weren't aware of. But another
Hendricks story at the science center ... gone 404, but lives on at the
wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090117083033/http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml
cites reference that can be found in virtual machine & science center
history paper here:
http://web.me.com/melinda.varian/Site/Melinda_Varians_Home_Page.html
for other drift about nsfnet backbone as operational basis for modern
internet ... some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
I was working with several of the organizations leading up to the NSFNET
backbone ... but then when the NSFNET backbone RFP was released,
internal politics preventing me from bidding. The director of the NSF
tried to help by writing a letter to the corporation copying the CEO ...
but that just made the internal politics worse ... as did the comments
about what I already had running was at least five years ahead of all
bid submissions. misc. past posts on the subject:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
other related wiki entries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_VNET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSCS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BITNET
some past posts mentioning BITNET (&/or EARN)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet
the european part of BITNET was EARN ... old email from
the person tasked to create EARN
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001h.html#email840320
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Dave Garland
Jun 16, 2012, 11:46:11 AM6/16/12
to
On 6/16/2012 1:52 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 04:30, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 6/15/2012 9:26 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>
>>> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win. We can kill
>>> them but they cannot kill us.
>>
>> Until they have drones too. What's it take? An R/C aircraft, a
>> Raspberry
>> Pi or Arduino computer to make it autonomous enough so that it can't be
>> killed by jamming, a payload. What do you figure, a couple of years?
>> This isn't the atom bomb, this is mostly stuff anybody with a credit
>> card can order, except for the programming.
>>
>>
>>
> It also needs an airfield that they can defend. They cannot match
> Britain and the USA's logistics.
They don't need to. Keep it fairly small, and they can launch from
> On 16/06/2012 04:30, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 6/15/2012 9:26 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>
>>> Drones make it clear to our enemies that they cannot win. We can kill
>>> them but they cannot kill us.
>>
>> Until they have drones too. What's it take? An R/C aircraft, a
>> Raspberry
>> Pi or Arduino computer to make it autonomous enough so that it can't be
>> killed by jamming, a payload. What do you figure, a couple of years?
>> This isn't the atom bomb, this is mostly stuff anybody with a credit
>> card can order, except for the programming.
>>
>>
>>
> It also needs an airfield that they can defend. They cannot match
> Britain and the USA's logistics.
the nearest road, or even a truck. And if they keep it below radar
height for a while, it will be very difficult to tell where it came from.
> The 9/11 attack used civilian logistics, further use these have now
> been denied.
retaliating here by killing civilians (as they surely are entitled to
do if we are killing theirs), there is no way to prevent attackers
from using civilian logistics. Neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were
able to reliably do so, with governments far more heavy-handed than
ours is yet.
The only sure defense is to not have people hate you. Killing
civilians (whether by accident or intention, and who can prove which
it was?) makes people hate you.
Dave
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jun 16, 2012, 11:47:02 AM6/16/12
to
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#38 Other Than In Computers, Civilization Basically Stopped Progressing In The 1960s
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#68 Interesting News Article
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#73 Interesting News Article
other trivia from previous post
past posts about GML/SGML at the science center (G, M, & L actually are
the first letters of the last names of the inventors)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#sgml
reference to SGML morphing into HTML at CERN
http://infomesh.net/html/history/early
and reference to first webserver outside Europe is on the
(virtual machine) vm370 system at SLAC:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/earlyweb/history.shtml
original relational was by Codd in bldg. 28, original relational/sql
implementation was System/R on vm370 370/145 in bldg 28 ... misc. past
posts mentioning system/r
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr
old email when Jim Gray was leaving bldg. 28 for tandem, he
was palming a bunch of DBMS related stuff on to me
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#email801006 ..
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#email801016 ..
later I was doing both the stuff leading up to NSFNET backbone and also
some stuff with trying to cram a lot of 370 and non-370 processors in
the same rack. a couple old email about conflicted and having to find a
substitute do a pitch to director of NSF while doing a meeting on
clusters of 370 & non-370s in rack
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#email850314
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#email850315
a few years later was doing cluster scaleup, giving up on 370s in
same rack with non-370s ... as part of our ha/cmp product. old post
reference early Jan1992 meeting in ellison's conference room on ha/cmp
cluster scaleup
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13
old email about doing ha/cmp cluster scaleup for both commercial/dbms
as well as scientific/numeric-intensive
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa
then possibly within hrs of last email in above (late Jan1992), effort
was transferred and we were told we couldn't work on anything with more
than four processors. a couple weeks later, news in press about it being
announced for numeric-intensive *ONLY* (17Feb1992)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1
and later in the spring referenc to it coming as complete *SURPRISE*
to the company (11May1992)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2
I got into a little tif with Gray (who was now at DEC) at Oct91 ACM
SIGOPS at Asilomar ... over whether I could do industrial strength
business critical dataprocessing with HA/CMP (and commodity parts)
... he was defending (specialized) VAX clusters. A couple years later,
after forming san fran M'soft research ... he was on stage with his
(then current) CEO touting their commodity business critical high
availability cluster. misc. past posts mentioning HA/CMP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
later in the last decade, Jim con's me into interviewing for position of
chief security architect in redmond ... the interview drags on over
period of several weeks, but we are unable to come to agreement. Jim
then disappears ... some old posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#4 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#6 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#8 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#17 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#33 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#28 Jim Gray Is Missing
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#25 Remembering The Search For Jim Gray, A Year Later
the following year there is tribute to Jim at Berkeley
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#32 A Tribute to Jim Gray: Sometimes Nice Guys Do Finish First
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#36 A Tribute to Jim Gray: Sometimes Nice Guys Do Finish First
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#40 A Tribute to Jim Gray: Sometimes Nice Guys Do Finish First
webcast URLs of tribute
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008.html#50 Microsoft versus Digital Equipment Corporation
more recent reference about finally cluster scaleup high-availability
for commerical/dbms
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#43 From The Annals of Release No Software Before Its Time
Peter Flass
Jun 16, 2012, 12:12:27 PM6/16/12
to
neighbor is a bank robber or rapist and you don't report them you could
be charged with a crime.
--
Pete
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Jun 16, 2012, 12:27:55 PM6/16/12
to
Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Congress formally authorised the fighting. It just did not call it a war.
only in a.f.c. this was earlier post in thread that was only a.f.c.
mentions Eisenhower originally intended to warn about the
military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) ... but then shortens
it to military-industrial complex (MIC) at the last minute.
above also mentions that MICC has seriously mis-aligned business
process ... borrowing from the testimony in congressional hearings
into the pivotal role that the rating agencies played in the
financial mess ... willing to sell "Triple-A" ratings on toxic
CDOs when they knew they weren't worth "triple-A" ... but the
"triple-A" ratings on toxic CDOs played significant role in
the financial mess ... a major factor in there was $27T in
triple-A rated toxic CDOs during the financial mess
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=a0jln3.CSS6c
it was major source of funds for real-estate speculation and the
resulting boom/bust, triple-A rating trumping everything else
... enabling majority of loans via non-tradional lenders, liar-loans,
no-documentation loans etc (using triple-A rated toxic CDOs, nearly
anybody could get into the loan origination business and take their
piece of the transactions as it flowed thru the infrastructure; greatly
aided by congressional removal of regulations).
they were the equivalent to the "Brokers' Loans" that were the cause of
the '29 crash ... from the Pecora (1930s congressional) hearings:
BROKERS' LOANS AND INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSION
For the purpose of making it perfectly clear that the present
industrial depression was due to the inflation of credit on brokers'
loans, as obtained from the Bureau of Research of the Federal Reserve
Board, the figures show that the inflation of credit for speculative
purposes on stock exchanges were responsible directly for a rise in
the average of quotations of the stocks from sixty in 1922 to 225 in
1929 to 35 in 1932 and that the change in the value of such Stocks
listed on the New York Stock Exchange went through the same identical
changes in almost identical percentages.
.... snip ....
Walter Bushell
Jun 16, 2012, 12:29:13 PM6/16/12
to
In article <jriasm$t7h$1...@dont-email.me>,
I think not, in the general case. Is there a lawyer in the house>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 16, 2012, 12:30:00 PM6/16/12
to
Rikishi42 <skunk...@rikishi42.net> wrote in
news:a0nsa9-...@murmur.very.softly:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
Nice way to get the last word when you know you're full of shit.
> On 2012-06-15, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>> news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
>>> the NFL...
>>>
>> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>> traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>> contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>
>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure
>> remote control technology, too.
>
> Arguably, so has Guantano Bay. And Abu Graib.
>
>
> Doesn't justify them. Proper (patent free) research funding and
> free (as in beer) education gets you there, if just a tad
> slower.
>
Nobody has been talking about justification, retard. Feel free to
participate in the same conversation as everyone else. Or not. But
expect to be mocked if you play troll games.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:a0nsa9-...@murmur.very.softly:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.]
Nice way to get the last word when you know you're full of shit.
> On 2012-06-15, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>> news:ac2nt75i3860gbc21...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>>>
>>>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>>>
>>>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>>>
>>>>It happened with the US civil war with surgery too.
>>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 04:50:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote
>>>>> Quadibloc wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> A *war*, on the other hand, spurs massive spending
>>>>>> on research and development in many areas, at least
>>>>>> some of which have useful peacetime applications
>>>>>> that the market would have found difficult to address.
>>>>
>>>>> Apart from World War II, when has that actually been true?
>>>>
>>>>It happened with WW1 with aircraft and surgery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>>>
>>>
>>> And now we benefit by those brave boys on the front lines of
>>>>It happened with Korea with chopper evacuation
>>>>of casualtys to decent medical facilitys.
>>>
>>>
>>> the NFL...
>>>
>> The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq have both contributed
>> substaionally to medical research in treatment of extreme
>> traumatic injuries, especially head injuries, and continue to
>> contribute *significantly* to reconstructive medicine.
>>
>> Considerable imporvements to drone technoology and secure
>> remote control technology, too.
>
> Arguably, so has Guantano Bay. And Abu Graib.
>
>
> Doesn't justify them. Proper (patent free) research funding and
> free (as in beer) education gets you there, if just a tad
> slower.
>
Nobody has been talking about justification, retard. Feel free to
participate in the same conversation as everyone else. Or not. But
expect to be mocked if you play troll games.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Jun 16, 2012, 12:32:26 PM6/16/12
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote in
news:jrgif6$9g1$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 6/15/2012 6:20 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being able
>> to kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that
>> is pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
>> population as well. It's not fair.
innit?
>
> Pity it won't be the guy in a trailer in San Diego who flew the
> drone that snuffed a wedding party, though.
You believe everything you read in the news, ev every time, do you?
>
> Armies of occupation don't ever get much respect.
>
The point being, a new technology that reduces risk to soldiers may
not reduce overall risk, it may just shift it to alternate targets.
But don't that that stop you from your insane, stupid anti-American
rant. Just try not to get too much semen on your keyboard. Rants like
yours are more amusing without the random letters from the electrical
short.
news:jrgif6$9g1$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 6/15/2012 6:20 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> Not according to the miliary. It is specifically our being able
>> to kill them with no possibility of them killing any of us that
>> is pissing off not just the enemy soliders, but their civilian
>> population as well. It's not fair.
>
> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get
> even is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will
> improve things immensely.
Aside from "they realized that decades ago," that's kind a the point,
> When their civilian population realizes that the only way to get
> even is to kill _our_ civilian population, I'm sure that will
> improve things immensely.
innit?
>
> Pity it won't be the guy in a trailer in San Diego who flew the
> drone that snuffed a wedding party, though.
You believe everything you read in the news, ev every time, do you?
>
> Armies of occupation don't ever get much respect.
>
The point being, a new technology that reduces risk to soldiers may
not reduce overall risk, it may just shift it to alternate targets.
But don't that that stop you from your insane, stupid anti-American
rant. Just try not to get too much semen on your keyboard. Rants like
yours are more amusing without the random letters from the electrical
short.
Carson Chittom
Jun 16, 2012, 12:32:52 PM6/16/12
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Knowledge_of_the_crime
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages