What do you think are the most important inventions of the 20st century?
Apollo
you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
thing that invention is important and what do u know about
it?
please help me as soon as possible!!!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Robert Macy
The equations used to solve the geodesic structures (minimal energy state)
were used to solve the molecular structure of the polio virus. Thus a tie
between nature on a microscopic level and useable structures.
Laser - coherent light.
The internet
- Robert -
Apollo wrote in message <17cf2b68...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com>...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Robert
Robert Macy wrote:
> Buckminster Fuller invented the geodesic dome (and structures)
>
> The equations used to solve the geodesic structures (minimal energy state)
> were used to solve the molecular structure of the polio virus. Thus a tie
> between nature on a microscopic level and useable structures.
>
> Laser - coherent light.
>
> The internet
>
>
Was this a variational calculus technique and where is it documented-please?
John Eaton
: I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
: you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
: century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
: thing that invention is important and what do u know about
: it?
The Spell Checker.
Tom Bruhns
list of most important inventions must be fairly long. I'd vote to put
radar on it. See Robert Buderi's (sp?) book about it for the reasons.
Cheers,
Tom
Apollo wrote:
>
> I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
> you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
> century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
> thing that invention is important and what do u know about
> it?
Jan Panteltje
>you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
>century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
>thing that invention is important and what do u know about
>it?
>please help me as soon as possible!!!
>* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and
>Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
>
After invention (or discovery) of the fire (some time before that).
Bob Myers
Tom Bruhns wrote in message <38AC33A7...@agilent.com>...
>Phisics? Cemistry? Don't know those disciplines. But clearly the
>list of most important inventions must be fairly long. I'd vote to put
>radar on it. See Robert Buderi's (sp?) book about it for the reasons.
Oh, c'mon, Tom. You're not trying hard enough. Given the
seriousness of the inquiry, its obvious relevance to the
topic of this group, and the clear importance of determining
this list as soon as possible, I would think that we OWE it
to Mr. Apollo to provide a reasonable set of answers.
Therefore (you KNEW this was coming, didn't you?) I
have to submit for consideration:
Nominees for the Greatest Inventions of the 20th Century:
1. SPAM. Not the electronic variety; you've gotta
admit that the whole idea of turning something that
would otherwise be meat by-products into a canned
food product with a shelf-life best measured in terms
of geologic epochs is worthy of consideration. This
leads us naturally to:
2. Snack foods, and their vending machines: It is
now possible to sustain one's self for significant
periods of time - such as the length of time needed
to read and respond to all the newsgroups one has
subscribed to - simply by inserting a few coins into
a machine. You get your RDA of preservatives and
carcinogens at the same time, too!
3. Cellular telephones. What can I say? I would
have thought that we'd already come up with every'
possible way to increase the motor vehicle
accident rate in this country. I was wrong.
4. Late-night talk shows and "celebrity"-oriented
magazines. Nominated for introducing a whole
new paradigm into our culture, in which a person
can be considered an expert on all manner of
subjects by virtue of having a television, film, or
music contract. This, of course, leads us to:
5. Afternoon talk shows. The greatest single
boost to human evolution in millenia; we now
have a way to trim what might charitably be
referred to as "the shallow end of the gene pool"
simply by having them beat the daylights out of
each other on national television. The
entertainment angle, whereby you can keep the
rest of this population glued to their sets while
awaiting their turn, is an added benefit.
6. The microwave oven. Permitting millions of
people to turn out "home-cooked" meals at the
same low level of quality, but in a quarter the
time!
7. Post-It Notes. If you don't agree with this one,
then YOU try to take 'em away from your
co-workers.
8. The entire "millenium" industry. You HAVE
to admire the sort of thinking that can make
millions simply by turning out a variety of
cheesy mementos that happen to be stamped
with a number of completely arbitrary significance.
And the best part is, they get to do it all over
again THIS December when the REAL turn of
the millenium hits! (Anyone willing to bet
AGAINST that?) Honorable mention to the
"Y2K Preparedness" industry.
9. Handheld televisions. It is at last possible to
spend $50 or more on a ticket for a sporting
event, in order to spend the entire time watching
said event displayed for you on a 2" screen
while freezing your #%$&@%& off, drinking a
$5.00 beer, and eating a $7.50 hot dog. If that
isn't progress, what is?
Well, that'll do for a start....
Bob M.
>
>Cheers,
>Tom
Neil Cherry
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:45:11 -0800, Tom Bruhns wrote:
>Phisics? Cemistry? Don't know those disciplines. But clearly the
>list of most important inventions must be fairly long. I'd vote to put
>radar on it. See Robert Buderi's (sp?) book about it for the reasons.
And #1 is:
The spell cheeker :-) (Yes that's supposed to be humor)
>Apollo wrote:
>>
>> I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
>> you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
>> century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
>> thing that invention is important and what do u know about
>> it?
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nch...@home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics GB)
Robert
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
> >you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
> >century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
> >thing that invention is important and what do u know about
> >it?
> >please help me as soon as possible!!!
> >* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and
> >Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
> >
> AHA the most important invention was no doubt the microwave oven.
> After invention (or discovery) of the fire (some time before that).
This no laugh Jan. The Smithsonian has the first oven model for domestic use-a Tappan IIGC.
Bob Penoyer
>I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
>you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
>century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
>thing that invention is important and what do u know about
>it?
>please help me as soon as possible!!!
After the spell checker, which someone else already noted, I'd vote
for antibiotics.
Lizard Blizzard
> I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
> you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
> century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
> thing that invention is important and what do u know about it?
> please help me as soon as possible!!!
In biology, Penicillin. It alone has saved millions of lives.
Andrew Chin
If it weren't for this little baby, the computer you're using would be the
size of a small factory.
"Apollo" <napollo...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17cf2b68...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
> I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
> you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
> century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
> thing that invention is important and what do u know about
> it?
> please help me as soon as possible!!!
>
>
sdey...@my-deja.com
The quantum physics that enabled the transistor. In the last 1000 years: the
printing press. (Will computers end up spreading info like the printing press
and in 500 be responible for the same impact on that society?)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Strand
That VC stuff is amazing but it's starting to push my math capabilities.
Regards
Rob
Tom MacIntyre
<rpen...@NOSPAMieee.org> wrote:
>Apollo <napollo...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
>>you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
>>century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
>>thing that invention is important and what do u know about
>>it?
>>please help me as soon as possible!!!
>
>After the spell checker, which someone else already noted, I'd vote
>for antibiotics.
Playboy...the internet...me...my wife...my kids...the GUI...
Tom
Pat Ford
Previously, Robert wrote in sci.electronics.design:
{
{
{ Jan Panteltje wrote:
{
{ > >I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
{ > >you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
{ > >century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
{ > >thing that invention is important and what do u know about
{ > >it?
{ > >please help me as soon as possible!!!
{ > >* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and
{ > >Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
{ > >
{ > AHA the most important invention was no doubt the microwave oven.
{ > After invention (or discovery) of the fire (some time before that).
{
{ This no laugh Jan. The Smithsonian has the first oven model for domestic use-a Tappan IIGC.
{
{
{
--
Pat Ford email: pf...@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
Robert
Apollo wrote:
> I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
> you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
> century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
> thing that invention is important and what do u know about
> it?
> please help me as soon as possible!!!
Any invention pertaining to the increased production, quality, and availability of food goes to the top of the list. These would include farm machinery,
fertilizer, pesticides, hybridization techniques, irrigation, crop/ livestock management, soil/water analysis, modern packaging, modern transport, modern
transportation infrastructure, and above all , modern mechanical refrigeration and modern refrigerants. Food is the ultimate necessity- you would be near
dead in just three days -72 hours- without it. Compared to this everything else is just gravy and nice-to-have's. Just consider where we would be without
modern refrigeration which in addition to increasing storage time does so in a way that prevents the proliferation of microbes and their deadly (sometimes
carcinogenic as with aflatoxins ) mycotoxins- which you cannot achieve using plain ice. Yep- those good ole days at the turn of the century when the average
life expectancy even in America was 45 weren't so good after all and the food situation goes a long way towards explaining it. How quickly we forget.
martin griffith
Panteltje) scribbled:
>>I have an important project, and i need your help-what do
>>you think are the most important inventions of the 20st
>>century (in phisics, biology, cemistry etc...)why do u
>>thing that invention is important and what do u know about
>>it?
>>please help me as soon as possible!!!
>>* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and
>>Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
>>
>AHA the most important invention was no doubt the microwave oven.
>After invention (or discovery) of the fire (some time before that).
"They" were researching microwaves (5mm to 2.5cm) in the late 1890's,
so it was a lot earlier than you thought!
see
http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html
(not the so-called hifi speaker people!)
"J.C. Bose was at least 60 years ahead of his time" and "In fact, he
had anticipated the existence of P-type and N-type semiconductors."
Martin
reality
for the current economic boom. It is defined in Clayton Christensen's book the Innovator's Dilemma and most clearly layed out in a Summer 1996(?) article in
the magazine Invention and Technology (I think that is the name) that talks about the history and the current (1996) problems in Bell Labs. It is found in
Frederick Winslow Taylor's work of 1910 and Schewart's 1930 work in Bell Labs. It is the most important aspect cited by most every Japanese company when
they talk of W. E Deming.
The latest version is known commonly as the Wintel consortium, the USB consortium, and the latest business model used by Boeing to build the 777. These
words are antonyms - innovation and cost controls. The former advances mankind. The later simply stifles the former and human growth. So new are these
concepts that most simply taken it all for granted.
The concept is Iinnovation. Its failure is found in GM where many inventions pioneered by GM technologists now appear in most every automobile in the
world and are still not found in GM standard products. Flawed understanding of innovation is why Bethlehem Steel and USX constantly run to the government
for protection and still don't use the now old technology called electric arc. It is why Ford Motor company went from near bankruptcy in 1980 to becoming on
the verge of replacing GM as the North American largest auto maker.
Innovation is a simple word. Is is quite complex, rarely taught in business schools, and was demonstrated successfully throughout the world by Thomas A.
Edison. It is why communism failed. Many have so little understanding of innovation that they overlook it, cite trivial examples of advancement, and
actually demean it when they throw money like a grenade to solve a problem. Many have so little background in innovation that they fail to understand that to
work, something must be explained by theory and proven by experimental evidence. This concept should be obvious to every school child - and yet we still
don't teach innovation. We assume that innovation is learned by osmosis.
One could spend a lifetime as a historian defining how innovation techniques advanced, changed, were stifled, and reinvented. You could rewrite all
history in terms of innovation. Who were the innovators? Alexander Bell, Alexander the Great, Alexander Hamilton, and maybe even Alan Greenspan.
Historians typically only write of the results and often fail to identify the reason for those results because they fail to understand what innovation is
about.
For example, recessions and depression are directly traceable to shortages of innovation. Simply look at the Japanese economy four years ago for a
stunning example and compare it to the Japanese economy of the early 1980s. Make a list, by year, of killer Japanese products to see how boom and bust is
directly traceable to innovations of years previous.
Neo-classical economists assume that innovation rains from the heaven. Therefore they falsely assume that innovtion is created by capital. Capital does
not create innovation.. Innovation requires capital. But capital never created innovation. Too much capital actually destroys innovation. Innovation is
such a mysterious topic that it is heatedly disputed with new economic theories created only in the past 10 years. New theories that focus more on
innovation and less on discredited concepts such as "economies of scale" and "capital shortages".
The greatest advancement in the last century has been how mankind is just beginning to learn to innovate. All those neat, new products are simply a
sympton of this new, breakthrough technology. Even the fundamental concepts of economics are now questioned because economists did not understand a powerful
force that makes societies prosper.
How to innovate is the major advancement of the 20th Century. Those who dispute it simply never appreciate or worked in an innovative environment. Most
American industries still do very little innovation. And yet because some American industries are so innovative, you see the associated hype even in the
stock market. How to innovate - or even what constitutes an innovation, is the reason that venture captialism was created. Innovation techniques are the
greatest discovery of the 20th Century.
Ken
Robert wrote:
> reality wrote:
> > But capital never created innovation. Too much capital actually destroys
> > innovation.
> You really hit the mark with this one; can you please give at least one specific
> example.
Microsoft Windows ?
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Ken
Robert wrote:
>
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Robert wrote:
> >
> > > reality wrote:
> > > > But capital never created innovation. Too much capital actually destroys
> > > > innovation.
> >
> > > You really hit the mark with this one; can you please give at least one specific
> > > example.
> >
> > Microsoft Windows ?
>
> Oh is that what he meant- adversarial capital. I thought he was talking about over
> funded development.
I don't know if that is what he actually meant but it did seem like a
prime opportunity to do a little light hearted Windows bashing :)
Robert
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38ADBF52...@earthlink.net...
> > increasing average life-span. Sanitation is of course very important but
> > it is only one of many ingredients to a healthy quality of life. If you
>
> Coupled with the germ theory of disease it is the main one.
>
> Dirk
Sanitation practices don't begin to touch the infinity of pathogens to which
you are exposed. It largely removes a distributed pollution to a fixed central
site where it is improperly disposed most of the time, but is better than
nothing. Now let's see, was it the sanitation department or the vaccine that
prevented your influenza infection this year? And if you develop a tooth
abscess, do you go to the sani dept or the dentist for a penicillin
prescription? And is it the sanitation department that oversees the water
quality of the local supply?- or is it the *health* authorities. Is it the
sanitation department that inspects the local restaurants and food markets for
compliance with regulations- little things like keeping food preparation areas
clean, proper storage practices, and employee hygiene? -no. -There is no
"main" one; each and every one of these components contribute to the public
health in a unique vital way. My point was that there should be no "main one"
mentality.
Robert
reality wrote:
[...snipped much wisdom...]
Robert
Ken wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
> > reality wrote:
> > > But capital never created innovation. Too much capital actually destroys
> > > innovation.
>
> > You really hit the mark with this one; can you please give at least one specific
> > example.
>
reality
cash.
Chrysler - 1979 when Lee Iacocca (I know I always misspell it) replaced finance oriented
Townsend and Ricardo. Chrysler had no cash. First Horizon - empowered engineers to fix
the design (instead of accountants). The engineers asked the bracket maker why he made the
bracket wrong. Previous Chryslers had windows that rattled inside doors when the windows
were lowered - very common in the 1960s. He said he could not make the bracket as designed
and had been telling the previous, finance oriented management as such for years. Engineers
fixed the bracket design and most every other assembly in the car with minimal expense, no
top management reviews, and no big capital solutions. Chrysler earned profits from Horizon -
something new - and without large capital outlays.
Then the K-car was designed on a shoestring budget. Next came major innovation; at least
for the 1970/80 American auto industry. Chrysler rescued the mini-van concept that sat
stifled in Ford. They did not design a big new product because Chrysler did not have deep
pockets. The first mini-vans were based on a properly designed K-car chassis using minimal
capital.
Ford: also near bankruptcy when an MBA named Henry Ford was removed. Henry did not even
possess a driver's license but knew how to spend money. (His wife partied with Immelda
Marcos). With no deep pockets and with Henry Ford removed, car guys (not finance types)
designed Taurus. Top corporate accountants no longer dictated how assembly plants were
designed. Atlanta's high productivity is the result of product oriented thinking. Taurus is
the first car designed by engineers since the 1965 Mustang. On a shoestring budget, Taurus
rescued Ford Motor from bankruptcy. That's right. Ford was right behind Chrysler on the way
to bankruptcy.
GM: Fremont CA was one of GMs worst three assembly plants. It was closed. Toyota proposed
a joint venture that reopened Fremont CA- NUMMI. Toyota rehired all those lazy union
workers, met those stifling CA environmental laws, and suffered the extra expense of shipping
most parts from the Midwest. When top GM executives visited, they asked, "Where are all the
robots?" What robots? This robot idea existed only in top GM corporate management
fantasies based on big buck solutions. The top man, Roger Smith, is reported to have never
visited an assembly plant (and also did not have a driver's license). Buy he preached that
robots were the solution. Fremont CA, without big capital expenditures, became more
productive than any other GM plant - grossly and obviously more productive. Some estimates
put the productivity at 40% better than any other GM plant. The only change - a different
model was manufactured and GM management (finance people) was removed.
GMs solution to problems were described by Ross Perot as "throwing money like a grenade" at
problems. They ripped down Poletown in Detroit to build an all robot factory for Cadillacs -
spending more money than the GDP of Luxembourg if I remember correctly. To make the factory
work, they had to scrap about 1/3rd of the robots, massively rebuild another 1/3, and put
humans on the assembly line. It was a disaster of major proportions because GM solved
problems by spending capital. The actual problem was irrelevant
Saturn has never earned a profit once you include the interest on an $8billion capital
investment. That amounts to about $2000 per car. Saturn, a small car from a company that
had previous small car experience, required 9 years partly because so much was designed
based on 'spending money to solve problems'. Nissan, about the same time, required only 4
years and $0.8billion to build a car they had never built before - Infinity. GM has yet to
earn a profit on Saturn because top management's solution was always based on capital
expenditures as advocated by business school simulations.
GM spent big bucks everywhere on their new 1980 and early 1990 models. GM bragged about
reducing Grand Am assembly time from 44 man-hours down to 28. However, Toyota used business
philosophies of W E Deming, et al to innovate - not big capital expenditures by MBA educated
bosses. Toyota capital was used sparingly as another tool. Therefore all Toyota models
were assembled in less than 25 man-hours. The Camry is now estimated to require less than 15
man-hours.
Toyota earns profits on cars. It is largely recognized that GM's big capital expenditures
are the reason why GM earns no profits on cars. GM earned no profits from any domestic
vehicle from 1990 through 1996. They spent little capital to design and build Suburban.
Chevy automobiles earn no profits. But the $30,000 Suburban earns $15,000 profit per
vehicle. Those are the profits that mask big losses in auto production.
Notice that the profits are found where capital expenditures are minimal. GM is the
classic example of poor productivity. Ross Perot's early 1990 conflicts with big capital and
MBA educated Roger Smith made that obvious. Today, GMs poor profits are directly traceable
to capital wasted on big capital projects. A GM car today needs two extra cylinders to
produce the same horsepower as a 4 cylinder Honda Accord. So where are the productivity
increases and cost savings from all those capital expenditures when a GM car needs more
pistons, piston rings, fuel injectors, block and head casting, heavier suspension and a
larger body around the bigger engine? Management blames the unions for their problems.
Another problem created by big capital solutions. The same union - UAW - works for Ford,
Chrysler, and GM. How many strikes against Ford since they removed Henry Ford and big
capital solutions? None. How many strikes against Chrysler? One, for 8 hours, in Kokomo,
IN transmission plant when they struck for more work. How many strikes against GM? 50?
70? One so disastrous in Flint MI that it shut down the entire country two summers ago.
Remember the strike? Did you remember the reasons for the strike? See what big capital
solutions produce. It even creates adversarial unions and automobiles that cannot be
exported from America.
There are many other examples. Bethlehem Steel and USX use big capital to make bigger
blast furnaces. The theory is based on the neo-classical concept of economies of scale. A
bigger blast furnace should be more productive. But electric arc furnaces were the state of
the art in 1964. Neither steel company has an electric arc furnace today - how many decades
later? Typically a blast furnace requires 8 hours to make steel - electric arc requires only
5. Nucor steel eats big capital steel for lunch every day because Nucor uses innovation.
USX and Bethlehem Steel still use big capital solutions and government protection - and then
blame the unions! Go figure.
By now even you understand that big capital does not create innovation, increased
productivity, more jobs, greater wealth, new industries, reduction in poverty, increased
health, and a stronger America. But you still can't tell that to finance oriented, big
capital thinkers. They even have welfare as another failed example of big capital
solutions. But can they see? No. Not when your business school education teaches that
solutions are found in financial simulators. In simulators, you submit capital expenditures
and estimate the resulting profits. Capital does not create innovation. Business school
simulations don't understand that.
Robert wrote:
> reality wrote:
>
> [...snipped much wisdom...]
>
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > increasing average life-span. Sanitation is of course very important
but
> > > it is only one of many ingredients to a healthy quality of life. If
you
> > Coupled with the germ theory of disease it is the main one.
> Sanitation practices don't begin to touch the infinity of pathogens to
which
> you are exposed. It largely removes a distributed pollution to a fixed
central
Sanitary practices control the quantity and regularity of exposure to
pathogens.
Where are the Cholera epidemics that used to ravage European cities? What
happened to Bubonic plague? I don't recall having shots for either of those,
or even hearing about these diseases in Britain in living memory. Suffice to
say, if you don't mix shit and water, and aren't exposed to fleas you stand
a good chance of avoiding both.
> site where it is improperly disposed most of the time, but is better than
> nothing. Now let's see, was it the sanitation department or the vaccine
that
> prevented your influenza infection this year? And if you develop a tooth
No, it was staying away from people who had flu. Another form of sanitation.
Over here flu shots are for the elderly (and at 46 I'm a long way off that
definition).
> abscess, do you go to the sani dept or the dentist for a penicillin
> prescription? And is it the sanitation department that oversees the water
Actually, I brush my teeth every day.
Quite a preventive form of sanitation.
> quality of the local supply?- or is it the *health* authorities. Is it the
Over here (UK) water supply and sewage come under the same authority.
> sanitation department that inspects the local restaurants and food markets
for
> compliance with regulations- little things like keeping food preparation
areas
> clean, proper storage practices, and employee hygiene? -no. -There is no
> "main" one; each and every one of these components contribute to the
public
> health in a unique vital way. My point was that there should be no "main
one"
> mentality.
There must be a 'main one' mentality. When resources are limited,
prioritise.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> > But capital never created innovation. Too much capital actually
destroys innovation.
> You really hit the mark with this one; can you please give at least one
specific example.
In the 'good old days' IBM.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
reality <"info"@NOSPAM.com (but it still keeps coming)> wrote in message
news:38ae4...@news.nni.com...
> Chrysler - 1979 when Lee Iacocca (I know I always misspell it) replaced
finance oriented
> Townsend and Ricardo. Chrysler had no cash. First Horizon - empowered
engineers to fix
> the design (instead of accountants). The engineers asked the bracket
maker why he made the
> bracket wrong. Previous Chryslers had windows that rattled inside doors
when the windows
> were lowered - very common in the 1960s. He said he could not make the
bracket as designed
> and had been telling the previous, finance oriented management as such for
years. Engineers
Easiest money I ever earned.
I was contracted by management to find out why a new information system on
the factory floor wasn't producing the gains they had expected.
I did something truly radical - I asked those who used it every day what the
problems were. Wrote a report, suggested a few blindingly obvious solutions,
and got paid a heap of cash for a job well done.
One reason why part of the system was avoided was that if a field in a form
was filled in wrongly, it crashed the system, so the people who were
supposed to use it avoided doing so. But nobody bothered to ask them, or
demand that the IT people fix the problem.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> Oh is that what he meant- adversarial capital. I thought he was talking
about over
> funded development.
Like military stuff? Gold plated toilet seats etc?
Dirk
Jan Panteltje
>>
>> The renowned Ken <tyle...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Someone should find a cure for religion. Nothing I can think of threatens
>> > humanity more at this point in time than does organized religion except
>> > perhaps a 150 mile wide comet or asteroid smashing into the planet.
>>
>> At the risk of getting political ;-), the nation-state has been doing
>> pretty well for the last century or so.
>>
>
>so what engineered electronic device is going to cure this problems or
>any of the ones concerning this thread
>
replace brain by PIC?
Robert
Ken wrote:
> reality wrote:
> >
> > You have assumed the Bubonic Plague was a most serious problem. More people
> > were killed by the 30 Years War than Bubonic Plague. The 30 Year War was mostly
> > about Religion. Therefore putting Religion in its place was more signficant
> > advancement of the 20th Century than curing a disease.
> >
> > Besides, the enemy of innovation and one benefit of innovation are Religion
> > and the Bubonic Plague cure - public health. For Centuries, man did not know
> > how to innovate. When he finally learned the procedures, public attitudes,
> > cultural importance, etc necessary to create innovation, then many problems such
> > as plague and religion wars were reduced.
>
> Someone should find a cure for religion. Nothing I can think of threatens
> humanity more at this point in time than does organized religion except
> perhaps a 150 mile wide comet or asteroid smashing into the planet.
Agreed- nothing has caused more destruction and misery. But it really is not religion
so much as the mentality that throws rational thought to the four winds. As for the
asteroid,-it does not need to be that big; a simple quarter-miler hitting the earth at
the average 140,000 miles per hour will do it- all life as we know wouldn't even have
the status of a memory- nothing left to remember. JPL has identified 1500 pieces that
have Earth-intersecting orbits- no interceptions yet.
Robert
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38AF24FE...@earthlink.net...
>
> > > Sanitary practices control the quantity and regularity of exposure to
> > > pathogens.
> > > Where are the Cholera epidemics that used to ravage European cities?
>
> > They're coming your way. Read the World Health Organization summary.
> > http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact107.html . This will put your water
> authority
> > to the test- so you think there is no feces in you water, eh?
> > You can really become an expert at
> http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/cholera/.
>
> All kinds of stuff are 'coming our way'. I rather fancy Ebola...
Some things still originate in the UK- the spongiform encephalitis or mad cow
disease is an example. This is a very serious infection. In the US, any
individual who has spent more than six months in UK during the early 90's is
forbidden from donating blood.
>
>
> > > What
> > > happened to Bubonic plague?
>
> > Plague is caused by Yersinia Pestis, is alive and well, and naturally
> occurring
> > in many areas. Read the background at:
> > http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plagindex.htm. Here is a baby-edu site:
> > http://www.ento.vt.edu/IHS/plague.html.
>
> > In each of these infections, it is the know-how to diagnose, treat with
> > anti-biotics, and identify transmission routes that prevents the spread.
>
> Antibiotics made almost no contribution to the elimination of plague and
> Cholera in Britain. It was basic public health measures and hygeine that did
> the vast bulk of the work.
That is true but these measures were designed by the medical establishment; and
the bulk of the work was ultimately done by the population at large. The reason
for the extreme devastation of the 14th century European plague was precisely
because those people did not have a *clue* that the rats, black rats- rattus
rattus, were responsible. They latched on to every imaginable of hysterical
superstition in place of rational thought and exhibited less rationality then
the Hippocratus Greeks. It was the *mentality* of the times that was responsible
for the destruction-NOT the poor sanitary practices. You want an example- the
city of Basil, rather than do anything constructive, pursued an investigation of
the Jewish population, which uncovered that it was the Jewish rabbis who had
unleashed a plague "miasma" upon them. This bit of information was extracted
through torture. The result was the annihilation of 100% of the Jewish
population of the city, about 120,000 Jews.
>
>
> 'Doing their job well'? Like what? treating secret plague cases with
> antibiotics? I think not. There are a few cases of travellers returning with
> exotic diseases, but the suitably filthy human environment does not exist
> for it to multiply efficiently.
It does not require filth- high population density and ignorance are the most
potent accelerators. There is nothing "filthy" about the simple cholera-carrying
shellfish.
>
>
> And post WW1 syphilis in Britain was killing 60,000 per year.
> Still, compared with tobacco mortalities, it's all pretty small stuff.
Antibiotics eradicated syphilis which had been the scourge of Europe since the
Crusades.
It appears now that tuberculosis is on the comeback- see what your sanitation
does for you there.
Steve
>
> You have assumed the Bubonic Plague was a most serious problem. More people
> were killed by the 30 Years War than Bubonic Plague. The 30 Year War was mostly
> about Religion. Therefore putting Religion in its place was more signficant
> advancement of the 20th Century than curing a disease.
Agree strongly!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe Naples Italy: http://ftp.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
Robert
reality wrote:
> When management does not come from where the work gets done: one symptom.
>
> They are so superior that they cannot ask their workers. The business school
> philosophy specifically states that the graduate is trained to be the key
> decision maker - everyone works for him. Therefore he should not ask peons for
> advise; he should command them. So he hires a consultant who typically asks
> questions of the factory floor peons, and files a report to top management.
> Because top management does not come from where the work gets done, then they
> don't understand this process. They are only impressed by the consultants paper
> credentials.
>
> If this was some rumor, then we would not read this same story in so many
> books from Tom Peters, to Phillip Crosby, to W. E. Deming. It makes me wonder
> what books are read in Harvard Business since history dictates repeatedly that
> all great powers became so when the little people were empowered. It won the
> Battle of the Bulge, it saved many a platoon in Nam, and it is the secret of
> success in the greater Silicon Valley. IOW success happens when the boss works
> for the employees. To do so, the boss much come from where the work gets done -
> or be that extraordinary genius.
>
> How did Patton cut off the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge? He simply
> identifed the problem early, provided his troops with the strategic objective,
> and left them to solve the problem. He did not micromanage and he did not hire
> consultants.
These people are the scum of the earth- maybe less. And in all that time, top
management income has grown to be about 350 times the average- this is really
disgusting.
Robert
Tim Amie wrote:
>so what engineered electronic device is going to cure this problems or
> >any of the ones concerning this thread
Which one isn't? Electronics is integral to the collection of sound, accurate,
and timely information- this goes a long way towards dealing with many different
problems to include social and political as well. But the *most* potent
contribution is the empowerment of the individual intellect. This is the
open-ended potential- a true infinity. This may sound like so much BS to you but
then you and any other un-evolved apes can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
dang...@earthlink.net
>Someone should find a cure for religion. Nothing I can think of threatens
>humanity more at this point in time than does organized religion except
>perhaps a 150 mile wide comet or asteroid smashing into the planet.
Not all religions. "Breeder" fundamentalist religions like
Christianity and Islam are different than those which consider the
environment in practical terms, and man's place in it.
It's not necessarily anti-scientific or illogical to spiritualize and
enrichen man's life on earth with religious philosophy. But when
crazy concepts, like breed-to-the-death, sex=sin, or
my-morals-are-the-ONLY-morals, take on a life of their own, and cause
war, environmental collapse, degradation in quality of life, then
religion becomes a threat to man and other life, not an enrichner of
man's existence on earth.
I think a good way to begin a fundamentalist religion upgrade might be
to throw out the obviously impossible concepts. For example, we are
immortal beings, we are in telepathic communication with the creator
of the universe, angels live in the clouds, non-corporeal existence of
infinite duration is "heaven", outsiders go to Dante's inferno located
conveniently beneath the feet, thoughts require no living organic
brain, Noah captured and filled a little wooden boat with all species
on earth, etc.
Perhaps it is easier to respect religions which observe natural law
and appreciate the real world and the real, mortal humans and other
species who inhabit it. In other domains than religion, disrespect
and denial of natural law, and the nature of life and humanity, would
be considered arrogant and ignorant. And promises of immortality
would be laughed away as preposterous nonsense. I don't believe
religious organizations which do these things should be awarded
special dispensation - merely classified as what they are, ignorant,
arrogant, preposterous, and often destructive towards life of many
kinds.
The root cause of much of this nonsense is fear of death. Holding
out immortality as the lure, much is accomplished which enhances the
power and wealth of fundamentalist religious organizations and
leadership. Accepting that man is mortal, like all other living
things, renders preposterous supernaturalists largely impotent.
One ironic observation. The true nature of the universe is so
amazing, it far supercedes the made-up nonsense of supernaturalists.
The nearly infinite extent of the universe, billions of light years in
size, billions of years old, the stellar fusion processes powering
life and evolution, the incredible diversity and complexity of natural
life, the manifold dimensions of the physical universe and the nearly
incomprehensible components of which it is made, quarks, strings,
black holes, and so many other things. Supernaturalists pale in
comparison to real nature, with their little wooden boats, loaves, and
fishes. It simply proves that the imaginations of supernaturalists
cannot come close to the real wonders of life and nature. If
supernaturalists would simply open their eyes and accept what occurs
around them naturally, the need for a "bigger than life" philosophy
might be satisfied without adoption of destructive and irrational
principles.
Regards,
Dangerdave
Robert
Robert Strand wrote:
> I saw a show on cable TV recently about Africa where male
> members of the tribe were jumping over Cows naked and whipping the Women members
> with sticks.
We have people in the US who behave this way. They live in the Appalachians and Ozarks
and are known as "hillbillies." :)
dang...@earthlink.net
>what books are read in Harvard Business since history dictates repeatedly that
>all great powers became so when the little people were empowered.
I'm not certain Harvard Business School is the culprit. I worked
closely with an MBA from Harvard. He managed a Philco assembly plant
before it was purchased by FOMOCO. Later, he managed a robotics
development center and an advanced technology group. He was good.
Practical and cognizant of technical limitations and opportunities.
Good to work with because he organized technology development
logically, and simply knew how to manage people. He was very sharp on
investment, risk, and expected return from technological development.
From the same school though, you can also find the worst bureaucrats,
accomplishing little more than creating a need for themselves to
sign-off on all things important. Value added = zero.
There seems to be more to it than what is taught in school. Something
about the evolution of large organizations develops a class of persons
who parasitize organizations.
I've sometimes though about the problem in terms of size. For
example, in an organization of say, less than 10 or 20 people, it is
rarely possible for workers to be functionally non-contributive
without their colleagues knowing with certainty they are a drag on the
company and harmful to the remaining employees. Small size allows for
some amount of self-regulation. But when organizations expand to such
an extent that you may never meet the majority of employees, who knows
what people are up to, and if they are pulling their own weight? I'm
sure this phenomenon has been expressed more concisely in some type of
business theory, related to the problems of organizational structures,
communications, and efficiency, vs. size of employment.
Although one would never expect corporate leaders to admit it, large
corporations may be intrinsically wasteful of talent and physical
resources, simply because of size and dependent inefficiencies. But
in systems which reward corporate conquests, mergers, and
incomprehensibly tremendous profits, the trend is toward
consolidation, not support of manifold small, efficient organizations.
One way to limit this kind of problem would be a sliding corporate tax
system, with taxes increasing vs sales or size of employment. Under
current US tax laws the opposite is usually the case, because large
corporations are powerful and purchase favorable tax treatment via the
PAC system. Similar problems with very rich individuals, who often
pay a smaller percentage of income in taxes than poor people. They
are able to buy preferential tax treatment from willing congressional
representatives. Witness the 50,000 pages of US Federal Income Tax
code, written by lawyers, impossible for any human being to
comprehend, designed to obfuscate the underlying preferential effects
and benefit those can afford the ante. Something like 90% of US
congressional "representatives" are lawyers. Wha'd ya' expect?
Strange as it may seem, the world view presented by US corporate
leaders, incredibly rich persons, and their legal and financial
minions, may not represent the optimal way to organize corporate and
governmental systems to best represent a majority of citizens.
What a concept.
Regards,
Dangerdave
"Now It Can Be Told"
- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. -
<g>
Dirk Bruere
Jan Panteltje <j...@panteltje.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:951051619.25461....@news.demon.nl...
> >sSpehro Pefhany wrote:
> >>
> >> The renowned Ken <tyle...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Someone should find a cure for religion. Nothing I can think of
threatens
> >> > humanity more at this point in time than does organized religion
except
> >> > perhaps a 150 mile wide comet or asteroid smashing into the planet.
> >>
> >> pretty well for the last century or so.
> >>
> >
> >any of the ones concerning this thread
> >
Isn't that what Trotsky tried?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
reality <"info"@NOSPAM.com (but it still keeps coming)> wrote in message
> Not only has the non-religious nation state been doing well, but that is
also
> when and where almost all mankind advancement occurred. Coincidence?
Previously
> mankind had been ruled by a monarchy-religious, dictatorship coalition
that often
> impeded long term innovation.
Didn't seem to harm the Renaissance too much, nor just about every
intellectual flowering around the world throughout history.
> In order to define the greatest advancements of the 20th Century, one
must
> include politics. Even the Nobel Prize includes a political agenda.
Politics
Are you joking?
The 20th century was the century of Communism, Fascism and National
Socialism. More people killed because of bad politics than in the whole of
the rest of history combined (IMHO). [and mostly for non religious
scientific/humanistic/atheistic ideologies]
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
I thought they were called 'Americans'? :-)
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Steve <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:38AFEB...@armory.com...
> reality wrote:
> >
> > You have assumed the Bubonic Plague was a most serious problem. More
people
> > were killed by the 30 Years War than Bubonic Plague. The 30 Year War
was mostly
> > about Religion. Therefore putting Religion in its place was more
signficant
> > advancement of the 20th Century than curing a disease.
> -----------------
> Agree strongly!
So why not factor in the Communist and Fascist body counts on behalf of the
atheist tendency?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
<dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:axiwOBzfVM6Zk9...@4ax.com...
>
> Strange as it may seem, the world view presented by US corporate
> leaders, incredibly rich persons, and their legal and financial
> minions, may not represent the optimal way to organize corporate and
> governmental systems to best represent a majority of citizens.
>
> What a concept.
>
In such a situation, who's going to vote for change?
In the 'good old days' you had periodic wars and revolutions to weed out
such ruling classes. Now we have technological innovation, somewhat slower
but less bloody.
Dirk
Robert
Dirk Bruere wrote:
You're almost there, Dirk, but these political machines were formed to replace
monarchy-church dominated governments so that in effect the blame is on them for
this too! As for the destruction, it is unfortunate that man does not confine
his innovating abilities to non-military pursuits.
Kevin G. Rhoads
There is no cure. Just make sure that everyone sends
their kids to religious school/Sunday school/&c so
the tykes get innoculated against religion when young.
Otherwise they are much more likely to come down
with a bad case of some kind of "fundamentalism"
or Mooneyism or other cult-ism when they hit puberty.
Those Caeserian-operated/Barrier sustained lab. rats
are the healthiest d*mn rats -- until you take 'em out
of the sterile environment. Then, wham!, they'll get
everything at once, and extreme cases.
Kids raised without religion are the same. Since you
can't avoid it, innoculate! The Lutherans did alright
by me, and my son seems to be taking to a Reformed
Jewish upbringing without fanaticism just fine.
So support your local churches', mosques' and synagogues'
religious education -- it is the only innoculation against
rabid religion we have in society today!
YMMV
--
Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. (The Cheshire Cat for official Internet mascot.)
kgrhoads@NO_SPAM.alum.mit.edu
Kevin G. Rhoads
>accomplishing little more than creating a need for themselves to
>sign-off on all things important. Value added = zero.
The worst of the bureaucrats are clearly identifiable,
added value < 0
They impede or block. They assign blame. Responsibility
is completely decoupled from authority. Since wholesale
murder is frowned upon, the only answer is to go elsewhere
whenever you stumble upon a nest of them.
I can work around the problems of no-added-value deadweights,
but in nearly 50 years I have found no way of dealing with the
negative value ones except "get out". Occasionally, when there
is a single one in isolation, removal (e.g., firing) is possible. This
however, is the rare exception.
Learn to recognize these, it is easy enough with a little self training,
and avoid with more assiduousness than that with which you avoid the
plague -- they are worse.
Jan Panteltje
reality
> Politics and politicians cannot advance mankind; only make that advancement
>possible or impede that advance. It is a ternary condition.
You have provided conditions that have impeded the advance of mankind -
facism, etc. AND have provided situations when government less stifled the
advancement of mankind - Renaissance. Poltics and politicians cannot advance
mankind; only make that advancement possible. Rain cannot create corn - only
make that corn possible - another ternary condition.
reality
> I'm not certain Harvard Business School is the culprit. I worked
> closely with an MBA from Harvard. He managed a Philco assembly plant
> before it was purchased by FOMOCO. ....
You have defined an organziation that may have had sharp people - but people so
driven to optimize existing technology that they could not see the future. Places
such as Philco were filled with sharp people who were destructive to operations
because they accurately measured return on investment and could not see disruptive
technologies. Disruptive technologies typically demonstrate very poor return on
investment and yet make existing technologies obsolete.
Simply read the long list of disk drive manufacturers who were so involved in
return on investment that they were driven out of business. The 12" manufacturers
were so smart that they failed to see the advantage of 8" drives. Those
manufacturers failed to see the power of smaller 5" drives, etc. Philco was
dominated by such thinking. That is why successful TV manfacturers are all foreign
owned. That is alway why most American tire companies became foreign owned. Yes-
Firestone, Uniroyal, Goodrich, etc are all now foreign companies because they too
had these sharp people who could not understand disruptive technologies.
>
>
> I've sometimes though about the problem in terms of size. For
> example, in an organization of say, less than 10 or 20 people, it is
> rarely possible for workers to be functionally non-contributive
> without their colleagues knowing with certainty they are a drag on the
> company and harmful to the remaining employees. Small size allows for
> some amount of self-regulation. But when organizations expand to such
> an extent that you may never meet the majority of employees, who knows
> what people are up to, and if they are pulling their own weight? I'm
> sure this phenomenon has been expressed more concisely in some type of
> business theory, related to the problems of organizational structures,
> communications, and efficiency, vs. size of employment.
I hear another Hilary Clinton health plan in your thinking. Build a big
bureacracy to solve a productivity problem? Why not attack problems at its'
source. One source of low productivity is "Buy American". The free market makes
big companies successful when you buy the best - not "Buy American". 85% of all
problems are directly traceable to top management. Solve that problem is to stop
buying bad products. Purchase regardless of who made it.
We saved Chrysler that way. We saved Ford Motor that way. Unfortunately some
people still want to fix Bethlehem Steel and USX with tax structure solutions (they
accept campaign contributions). Sounds like Reaganomics again. The problem with
those two steel companies is fixed by eliminating all protective tariffs. That
would be so painful that it would eliminate a top management that does not come from
where the work gets done. No pain; no gain.
You have defined what we call peer pressure. It was ideally exampled in the Gulf
War when that Marine General visited his troops just before the invasion. Why do
soldiers fight? For love. That is not bull. They fight first and foremost to
protect their buddy. Peer pressure. They have it when top management defines the
strategic objective, provided the necessary tools and support, provides the attitude
and knowledge, and empowers those workers or those soldiers to do their job. Those
Marines lost almost no one when they were predicted to suffer casulties in the
thousands. The frontal attack was a phenomenal success - actually too sucessful.
It destroyed Swartzkopf's pincher. Those boys were provided the attitude and
knowledge - empowered to do their job, and fought so viciously to protect their own
that when surprised on their open left flank, those attacking Iraqis with heavy
amour never had a chance against less amoured Marines. Peer pressure made Marines
an awesome power.
Peer pressure only happens when top management does not micromanage. In
Challenger, every engineer said, "Don't Launch". But engineers were nothing more
than common employees - they were not empowered to do their job. "Take off your
engineers hat and put on your management hat". That quote makes every knowledgable
American bristle on the spine hairs. That quote defined 3rd degree murder of seven
astronauts.
A Marine Corp General came from where the work got done. He knew what those
troops needed and he knew the fundamentals of why troops fight.
Those Marines were Saddam's worst nightmare because they were empowerered. They
had been provided the atttitude and knowledge to do their job. They were so
empowered that peer pressure was everywhere. When top management is not the enemy,
then love exists everywhere in the ranks. They were a unified team. That, my
friends, it THE American secret - and not taught in the Harvard Business School.
Peer pressure is an awesome force that happens or that is stifled by management.
Management cannot create peer pressure - only let it happen. And when it does
happen, powerful organizations have no size limit to remain productive.
reality
can be identified by no peer pressure among employees. Infighting and disputes
happen when the employees only work for the boss.
The same union works for Ford, Chrysler and GM. How many strikes against Ford in
20 years. 0. None. How many against Chrysler? One, for eight hours. They struck
for more work. The unions at Ford and Chrysler are part of the team - peer pressure
strong and productive. How many against GM? 40? 80? Including Flint MI that shut
down all auto assembly plants. GM corporate management and its star - Roger Smith -
is dominated by MBA thinking. The other two companies are lead by Car Guys.
Since Roger Smith, who could not even drive a car, was so anti-American - so
business school trained; he created infighting and discord in the ranks. Forbes
father said that Smith did everything correct - it was just bad luck. Bull. Steve
Forbes' father was also a classic MBA. Top GM management is the only reason for an
adversarial UAW that works productively with Ford and Chrysler. 85% of all problems
are directly traceable to top managment. Adversarial unions are only created by
adversarial management. Adversarial management only destroys peer pressure. Peer
pressure is THE most power element in a productive organization.
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I've sometimes though about the problem in terms of size. For
> example, in an organization of say, less than 10 or 20 people, it is
> rarely possible for workers to be functionally non-contributive
> without their colleagues knowing with certainty they are a drag on the
> company and harmful to the remaining employees. Small size allows for
> some amount of self-regulation. But when organizations expand to such
> an extent that you may never meet the majority of employees, who knows
> what people are up to, and if they are pulling their own weight? I'm
> sure this phenomenon has been expressed more concisely in some type of
> business theory, related to the problems of organizational structures,
> communications, and efficiency, vs. size of employment.
>
Robert Strand
> Tim Amie wrote:
> >so what engineered electronic device is going to cure this problems or
>
> > >any of the ones concerning this thread
>
> Which one isn't? Electronics is integral to the collection of sound, accurate,
> and timely information- this goes a long way towards dealing with many different
> problems to include social and political as well. But the *most* potent
> contribution is the empowerment of the individual intellect. This is the
> open-ended potential- a true infinity. This may sound like so much BS to you but
> then you and any other un-evolved apes can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with your statement but it appears to me that the behaviour of many cultures
actually prohibit people from developing any form of intellect, logic, or knowledge
of how the world works. I saw a show on cable TV recently about Africa where male
members of the tribe were jumping over Cows naked and whipping the Women members
with sticks. I've seen other cultures make glorious offering of food to the 'god's
when they don't really have much food themselves. I find it almost unbelievable
that the western world put man on the moon some thirty years ago yet other cultures
to this day are still locked into almost child level beliefs and behaviours. What
hope do countries like this have when the West imposes any form of technology or
Western culture on them, not to mention things that may actually harm their
environments. For example, I saw a documentary about Papua New Ginuea where a
promotion company got locals to make live adds (more like a show) where they sold
household items such as washing powder, toothpaste.. etc to hill tribes people.
These people have no use for these products and they were basically pouring them
into their rivers. The whole aim of the excercise was to make these people become
dependent on these Western items and hence create a new market. How can these
people develope any Western level intellect to work out what is happening to them,
it's simple beyond their square?
Regards
Rob
Robert Strand
> out immortality as the lure, much is accomplished which enhances the
> power and wealth of fundamentalist religious organizations and
> leadership. Accepting that man is mortal, like all other living
> things, renders preposterous supernaturalists largely impotent.
Dave, I couldn't agree more. That's exactly how I've viewed it for a while
now and it's got me beat why people don't see though it. I thought an
excellent example was Henry the Eight, he just made up a new religion to keep
the power of balance. What about the Spanish inquisition period, hey, if your
not one of the boy's we'll burry you on the spot and stick you with a few hot
pokers before you go, just so the masses don't get restless.
Regards
Rob.
Robert Strand
> Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38B02279...@earthlink.net...
> > > I saw a show on cable TV recently about Africa where male
> > > members of the tribe were jumping over Cows naked and whipping the Women
> members
> > > with sticks.
>
> > We have people in the US who behave this way. They live in the
> Appalachians and Ozarks
> > and are known as "hillbillies." :)
>
> I thought they were called 'Americans'? :-)
It does beg the question can hillbillies be classed as part of western culture
(and I'm not talking the big west here), or in fact Americans for that
matter......who are these people anyway.....Grandma .....Uncle Jed.....damm
American oil barons.
Regards
Rob
Robert Strand
> You're almost there, Dirk, but these political machines were formed to replace
> monarchy-church dominated governments so that in effect the blame is on them for
> this too! As for the destruction, it is unfortunate that man does not confine
> his innovating abilities to non-military pursuits.
Then the budgets get too small to do anything useful :).
Regards
Rob
dang...@earthlink.net
Unless technology control is excercised by a few percent of the
population. Example - Gates, "richest man on earth". Under these
conditions, don't expect much social improvement from technology. The
current purpose of technology is to make money for the small
percentage who control technical industries.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>>From the same school though, you can also find the worst bureaucrats,
>>accomplishing little more than creating a need for themselves to
>>sign-off on all things important. Value added = zero.
>
>The worst of the bureaucrats are clearly identifiable,
>added value < 0
Cool. A negative value added. I never thought about it in quite
those terms, but you are right. All cost and no profit production
does equate to a negative value added.
>They impede or block. They assign blame. Responsibility
>is completely decoupled from authority. Since wholesale
>murder is frowned upon, the only answer is to go elsewhere
>whenever you stumble upon a nest of them.
>
>I can work around the problems of no-added-value deadweights,
>but in nearly 50 years I have found no way of dealing with the
>negative value ones except "get out". Occasionally, when there
>is a single one in isolation, removal (e.g., firing) is possible. This
>however, is the rare exception.
>
>Learn to recognize these, it is easy enough with a little self training,
>and avoid with more assiduousness than that with which you avoid the
>plague -- they are worse.
Well said.
Those became my solutions as well. Avoidance. Work-arounds.
Bypasses. Placation. Anything but involving them in a priority
project.
Right on the money with the "clustering phenomenon" as well. You
don't often find isolated non-contributors, you typically find
clusters of them, forming mutual support groups.
Interesting concept - does the large corporation generate by
necessity, clusters of parasites, who cannot contribute to
productivity?
Taken individually, almost anyone can learn a useful skill, and many
want to do so. So what is it about large corporate structures that
turn potentially useful individuals (often well educated) into
components of parasitic clusters?
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>The 20th century was the century of Communism, Fascism and National
>Socialism. More people killed
You left out possibly the single greatest war producing political
system - the United States.
Did any other country in the world participate in more wars in the
20th century? From memory, we were in at least 20 wars, declared or
undeclared. Does the US hold the 20th century record?
I don't want to express an opinon on the "goodness" of US wars
compared to the "badness" of other countries wars. Just would like to
know if the US holds the 20th century record. To specify a bit, by
war, I don't mean internal police actions, for example, battles
between national police and the various groups in India, the US,
Russia, or China. Under this definition destruction of the Davidian
compound or the frequent LA riots are not examples of warfare. By war
I mean military attacks on soverign nations, where soldiers invade
foreign territories by land, sea, or air, and destroy life or property
using military weapons.
I suspect the US did this more times, and to more soverign nations,
than any other country in the 20th century. Is this correct?
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> I'm not certain Harvard Business School is the culprit. I worked
>> closely with an MBA from Harvard. He managed a Philco assembly plant
>> before it was purchased by FOMOCO. ....
>
> You have defined an organziation that may have had sharp people - but people so
>driven to optimize existing technology that they could not see the future.
How do you know? I don't recall seeing you there. Do you have any
direct knowledge - or is this assumption?
If you want to know how participating individuals were "driven", why
not ask?
I haven't worked with many engineers or scientists who could "see the
future". That ability is more commonly claimed by clairvoyants or
psychics. Most involved with advanced technology development seem
concerned about real abilities, opportunities, risks, measureable
results, and the calculable effects from introductions of new
technologies.
> Philco was
>dominated by such thinking.
I wouldn't know. FOMOCO bought Philco to make car radios, and to
obtain electronics mfgr'ing technology. They still make car radios
and many other electronic systems.
I can't see the connection between car radios and "disruptive
technology".
I'm nitpicking with cause - where assumption and loose terms are
involved, meaningful dialogue becomes problematic (unlikely).
If you have a theory about "disruptive technology", why not post it as
such?
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
> Bad management
>can be identified by no peer pressure among employees.
So what is good management defined by, number of heart attacks?
Regards,
Dangerdave
Dirk Bruere
<dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:diCxOOntRzNPdi...@4ax.com...
> >For some reason, the world seems just right if you're rich and powerful.
> >In such a situation, who's going to vote for change?
> >
> >In the 'good old days' you had periodic wars and revolutions to weed out
> >such ruling classes. Now we have technological innovation, somewhat
slower
> >but less bloody.
> Unless technology control is excercised by a few percent of the
> population. Example - Gates, "richest man on earth". Under these
> conditions, don't expect much social improvement from technology. The
> current purpose of technology is to make money for the small
> percentage who control technical industries.
That's always been the way.
The danger is of that 'small percentage' always being the same people.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
<dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eSWxOMD8ppTUoO...@4ax.com...
compound or the frequent LA riots are not examples of warfare. By war
> I mean military attacks on soverign nations, where soldiers invade
> foreign territories by land, sea, or air, and destroy life or property
> using military weapons.
>
> I suspect the US did this more times, and to more soverign nations,
> than any other country in the 20th century. Is this correct?
Unlikely if we count the existing empires in that context.
The US innovation was to take the British economic imperialist model to its
logical conclusion. That is, only use troops if your multinationals get into
trouble or your pet dictator gets out of line/deposed.
Dirk
Basil Brush
s980...@redback.cse.rmit.edu.au says...
> The transistor.
>
> If it weren't for this little baby, the computer you're using would be the
> size of a small factory.
...that, and the process used to get it there....
Without this process, they'd still be huge.
--
www.basilscans.f9.co.uk : The home of BASILscans
High quality scans of female celebs / models.
reality
friends father was a major executive - and he knew nothing about electronics. He came from the
accounting department.
But then you only need look inside the televisions to see how they did not change - did not advance.
It took forever for designs to incorporate transistors. Back then I did not really understand what I
was looking at. Once I worked where the work gets done, then the slow downsizing at Philco made
complete sense.
May you could confirm this for me. One of the area electronic companies developed what became known
as the Sony Trinitron TV tube. Was that Philco?
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:33:57 -0500, reality <"info"@NOSPAM.com (but it still keeps coming)> wrote:
>
> >dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not certain Harvard Business School is the culprit. I worked
> >> closely with an MBA from Harvard. He managed a Philco assembly plant
> >> before it was purchased by FOMOCO. ....
> >
> > You have defined an organziation that may have had sharp people - but people so
> >driven to optimize existing technology that they could not see the future.
>
> How do you know? I don't recall seeing you there. Do you have any
> direct knowledge - or is this assumption?
>
> If you want to know how participating individuals were "driven", why
> not ask?
>
> I haven't worked with many engineers or scientists who could "see the
> future". That ability is more commonly claimed by clairvoyants or
> psychics. Most involved with advanced technology development seem
> concerned about real abilities, opportunities, risks, measureable
> results, and the calculable effects from introductions of new
> technologies.
>
> > Philco was
> >dominated by such thinking.
>
reality
and a non-adversarial union.
Minimal layers of management is another. Ford once had 48 bosses between the employees and Henry Ford
- bad management. Today that number is closer to 6. Good management does not need excessive management
layers .
Good management in a major company has few employees in the corporate office. Good management of a
major company employs less than 400 in the corporate office and typically employs about 200.
Good management is characterized by no quality control inspectors. Any company that has quality
control inspectors has no quality - another bad management symptom.
reality
Austrailia was an American ally in every American war since WWI - except Kosovo
if that was called a war.
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> <dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
Robert
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> By war
> I mean military attacks on soverign nations, where soldiers invade
> foreign territories by land, sea, or air, and destroy life or property
> using military weapons.
>
> I suspect the US did this more times, and to more soverign nations,
> than any other country in the 20th century. Is this correct?
>
As usual-you are completely wrong. The only sovereign nations with which the US was
in a state of war during the 20th century are Germany and the Austro-Hungarian
allies in WWI and Germany and the fascist allies in WWII as well as Japan-
everything else was a police action to protect American lives and/or industrial
interests or a UN action. Germany declared war on nearly every country in Europe
and Japan declared war on nearly every country in the Pacific during the last
century. You find any instance in American military history comparable to the
Japanese slaughter of 350,000 Chinese civilians at Nanking- bayoneting pregnant
women- and we're supposed to be ashamed of nuking them- I say bull-oney.
Bill Sloman
Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > By war
> > I mean military attacks on soverign nations, where soldiers invade
> > foreign territories by land, sea, or air, and destroy life or
> > property using military weapons.
> >
> > than any other country in the 20th century. Is this correct?
> >
>
> As usual-you are completely wrong. The only sovereign nations with
> which the US was in a state of war during the 20th century are Germany
> and the Austro-Hungarian allies in WWI and Germany and the fascist
> to protect American lives and/or industrial interests or a UN action.
The US was most definitely in a state of war against North Korea and
North Vietnam. The campaign against North Korea certainly certainly was
a UN action. I don't remember the Vietnam campaign ever being dressed up
as a UN action - Australia's force (conscripted for the occasion by a
particularly lickspittle bunch of politicians) were always described as
"supporting our American allies" (paymasters) rather than as forming
part of a U.N. force. Taiwan supplied some cannon-fodder as well.
I don't see that an act of war justified as a police action to protect
American industrial interests stops being an act of war.
> Germany declared war on nearly every country
> in Europe and Japan declared war on nearly every country in the
> Pacific during the last century. You find any instance in American
> military history comparable to the Japanese slaughter of 350,000
> Chinese civilians at Nanking- bayoneting pregnant women- and we're
> supposed to be ashamed of nuking them - I say bull-oney.
The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and the nuclear attacks on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki slaughtered a large number of German and Japanese
civilians, no doubt including a number of pregnant women.
Personally bayoneting a pregnant woman does require a higher level of
moral imbecility than giving orders that imply the asphyxiation and
incineration of a large chunk of the civilian population of a city, but
I'd say the acts were at least comparable.
Whether or not the acts were a military necessity, we should all be
ashamed of them. Quite a few people lack that empathy - there were some
fairly terrifying psychological tests done in the U.S. a few years ago
that pretty clearly indicated that something like 30% of the population
could be persuaded to torture test subjects if you set the scene
properly - but if I suffered from that particular defect, I'd keep quiet
about it.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dang...@earthlink.net
I appreciate the comments, Bill.
I was hoping to avoid the "good" vs. "bad" wars debate.
I would just like to know if the US attacked the most soverign nations
in the 20th century. Interesting, that even the possibility that this
may be correct stirs up the premptive political labels and dogma.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
>
><dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Agreed.
Interesting special on PBS last night. The Greek empires.
Fascinating that were plagued by many of the same problems US
democracy now faces. Rabble-rousing, mob rule, impractical political
policies. Do things ever change?
Somewhere between simple democracy and pure tyranny must be a
practical system for handling practical matters. Very strange that
2,500 years has passed, and the same basic flaws remain uncorrected.
Regards,
Dangerdave
Merlin
> Interesting side note and not relevant to this topic: in the 20th Century,
>Austrailia was an American ally in every American war since WWI - except Kosovo
> if that was called a war.
I suppose all the Kosovo people will call it a war, after having large
number of there people murdered, due to political and religious gain,
be it on the allied (USA, UK, Italy) side or not. I notice Tony Blair
(UK Prime Minister) soon moves on to other subjects when questions
over the children and other civilian people who were nothing to do with
the war, were bombed and killed by the so-called UN.
Merlin
Merlin
> You find any instance in American military history comparable to the
> Japanese slaughter of 350,000 Chinese civilians at Nanking- bayoneting pregnant
> women- and we're supposed to be ashamed of nuking them- I say bull-oney.
Typical attitude I would exspect from you. Concidering that most U.S troops
commited acts of pernicious perversion with the rape, acts of buggery and murder
of innocent vietnamese civilians and all condoned by the U.S Government.
I say nuke the U.S.
Merlin
Robert
Bill Sloman wrote:
> In article <38B1F289...@earthlink.net>,
> Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > > By war
> > > I mean military attacks on soverign nations, where soldiers invade
> > > foreign territories by land, sea, or air, and destroy life or
> > > property using military weapons.
> > >
> > > I suspect the US did this more times, and to more sovereign nations,
> > > than any other country in the 20th century. Is this correct?
> > >
> >
> > As usual-you are completely wrong. The only sovereign nations with
> > which the US was in a state of war during the 20th century are Germany
> > and the Austro-Hungarian allies in WWI and Germany and the fascist
> > allies in WWII as well as Japan - everything else was a police action
> > to protect American lives and/or industrial interests or a UN action.
>
> The US was most definitely in a state of war against North Korea and
> North Vietnam. The campaign against North Korea certainly certainly was
> a UN action. I don't remember the Vietnam campaign ever being dressed up
> as a UN action - Australia's force (conscripted for the occasion by a
> particularly lickspittle bunch of politicians) were always described as
> "supporting our American allies" (paymasters) rather than as forming
> part of a U.N. force. Taiwan supplied some cannon-fodder as well.
The US did not declare war on either North Korea or North Vietnam. In each
case the US was defending the sovereignty of the South country. The
communists started these wars by invasion and the US was defender and, as
usual, initially unprepared. In the case of Vietnam, the allies joined the
effort because the whole conflict was a USSR versus free West battle-
everyone believed in the "domino effect" (which was an Eisenhower concept
BTW )- and the USSR was heavily involved with supplying advisors and
armaments as well. McNamara has since declared that history has shown our
thinking at the time to be wrong in his most recent book. You have to make a
distinction between a war fought to counter aggression and wrongful
domination and a war fought for self-aggrandizement. In each of these cases
the US was assisting a weak nation to defend itself against an aggressor
armed by a major power. War is a large disorganized and confused activity
with many evil acts and atrocities- but the overall purpose was noble.
> The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and the nuclear attacks on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki slaughtered a large number of German and Japanese
> civilians, no doubt including a number of pregnant women.
Yes- and these governments were attempting to take advantage of our morality
by locating strategic war-fighting capability in these heavily populated
civilian areas. This is the type of dilemma you are up against when you take
on Satan. These bombings were necessary to end the larger carnage and there
was no alternative- the civilians were not the target- we had to discipline
ourselves to ignore the inevitable carnage.
IIRC GB was a 50% participant in the Dresden bombing- 200 pound gelatinized
gasoline bombs dropped in copious quantity over a 24 hour period. The German
war records revealed that metrology had recorded hurricane winds of up to
150 MPH to feed the flames at the outskirts of the city. -They did it to
themselves.
>
> Personally bayoneting a pregnant woman does require a higher level of
> moral imbecility than giving orders that imply the asphyxiation and
> incineration of a large chunk of the civilian population of a city, but
> I'd say the acts were at least comparable.
Do you see how this misses the point? We were destroying enemy war-fighting
capability in the only possible way to end the carnage and the civilians
were an unfortunate problem. The Japanese had already occupied the city and
were murdering the entire civilian population in a most sadistic way for no
identifiable legitimate military reason. How do you compare the two actions-
not possible.
> Whether or not the acts were a military necessity, we should all be
> ashamed of them.
This is the wrong attitude- the opposite of celebration or pride is not
shame. We should remain emotionally neutral and logical so that the true
perspective can be acquired. We should NOT be ashamed- we should grow up and
learn to make unemotional value judgments..
> Quite a few people lack that empathy - there were some
> fairly terrifying psychological tests done in the U.S. a few years ago
> that pretty clearly indicated that something like 30% of the population
> could be persuaded to torture test subjects if you set the scene
> properly - but if I suffered from that particular defect, I'd keep quiet
> about it.
I believe it- not many Albert Schwietzer's over here in hickbilly land.
Robert
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I would just like to know if the US attacked the most soverign nations
> in the 20th century. Interesting, that even the possibility that this
> may be correct stirs up the premptive political labels and dogma.
No you don't!!!!- because it was just cheap rhetoric using the guise of simplicity
to make an (-other) erroneous point in the debate over death in wars between
religion dominated governments and atheistic governments.
Robert
Merlin wrote:
Your statements are untrue... and nobody really cares what you "say"- now do they.
Robert
Merlin wrote:
You're pretty opinionated for someone who knows absolutely and has a 5 second
concentration span. Merlin- so you like this film do you?- well magic is what it
will take for you to achieve the intelligence level of a chimpanzee. You're not a
contributor to this NG so why don't you drift on and loiter somewhere else.
Kevin G. Rhoads
And the mainframers couldn't see the mini's.
The mini guys couldn't seee the PCs or the workstations.
It is actually sort of amazing that tube manufacturers like
GE and RCA got into transistors, but that is probably
'cause the did more than make tubes -- they made
things that used tubes, and those designers felt the
need to transition to transistors. . .
Western Union (telegraph) couldn't see the telephone as
worthwhile.
The railroads weren't interested in trucking or airplanes, until the
trucklines and airfreighters took most of their business.
If you let bean counters run things, they define your business
in too narrow terms. The beans need to be counted, yes; but
that is in support of legitimate business decisions -- once the
bean counters run things it is all over except the fire sale . . .
For they will always choose the short-term safe path, and that
is the one choice we KNOW the outcome for in advance --
the short-term safe path will ALWAYS lead to failure in the
long term -- it may take decades, but failure is inevitable.
--
Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. (The Cheshire Cat for official Internet mascot.)
kgrhoads@NO_SPAM.alum.mit.edu
dang...@earthlink.net
>>Austrailia was an American ally in every American war since WWI - except Kosovo
>> if that was called a war.
I don't recall many Aussies rolling into Panama (or Granada, or
Pakistan, or Afghanaistan, or ....) Actually, in the more recent
attacks, no troop deployments of any kind. Let loose the cruise
missles and watch on TV.
Like video games, but better, because real people are blown to bits.
Regards,
Dangerdave
Bob Penoyer
>The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and the nuclear attacks on
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki slaughtered a large number of German and Japanese
>civilians, no doubt including a number of pregnant women.
>Personally bayoneting a pregnant woman does require a higher level of
>moral imbecility than giving orders that imply the asphyxiation and
>incineration of a large chunk of the civilian population of a city, but
>I'd say the acts were at least comparable.
Relatively few people alive today know the terror of total war. Our
parents (mine, certainly) lived through such a time. After four years
of hard, desperate fighting (6 years for some), the Germans and
Japanese had the choice to either surrender or submit their
populations to continued desperate deprivation and suffering. THEY
chose the latter. The Japanese could have surrendered after the first
A-bomb. THEY chose not to.
The actions of the Allies that you deride brought the war to a
complete conclusion. The Germans and Japanese didn't WANT anymore war.
They had had enough. Because the Allied victory was so complete, there
were no undertones by the Axis to restart hostilities should the
opportunity arise. America and the Allies didn't ask for the war but
the world is a better place today because they had the means and the
will to win it.
It's easy for us to sit back in our easy chairs or tap on a computer
keyboard and be judgmental about what those old men did more than 50
years ago, but they were heroes who saved the world.
>Whether or not the acts were a military necessity, we should all be
>ashamed of them.
You be ashamed. They won. We are all better off for what they did.
Dirk Bruere
<dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SIuyOAWDFRq66W...@4ax.com...
> >That's always been the way.
> >The danger is of that 'small percentage' always being the same people.
> Interesting special on PBS last night. The Greek empires.
> Fascinating that were plagued by many of the same problems US
> democracy now faces. Rabble-rousing, mob rule, impractical political
> policies. Do things ever change?
>
> Somewhere between simple democracy and pure tyranny must be a
> practical system for handling practical matters. Very strange that
> 2,500 years has passed, and the same basic flaws remain uncorrected.
The obvious answer is massive decentralisation within a loose federation.
Such a solution is probably more practical now, in terms of communications
and co-operative administration than at any time in history.
At any rate, since people don't change, and technology does, we ought to be
looking there for the new ways.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Bill Sloman <bill_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88tp15$mgt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> fairly terrifying psychological tests done in the U.S. a few years ago
> that pretty clearly indicated that something like 30% of the population
> could be persuaded to torture test subjects if you set the scene
> properly - but if I suffered from that particular defect, I'd keep quiet
> about it.
I thought it was closer to 100%.
The experiments were conducted by Zimbardo
Dirk
dang...@earthlink.net
>commited acts of pernicious perversion
Well, the morality argument is one you cannot win and aren't intended
to.
The wellspring for most western warfare and weapons system
"effectiveness" and "morality" information is the US Defense
Department. Arguing the effectiveness or morality of warfare just
legitimizes the propoganda campaign, and insures the purchase of ever
more expensive and destructive weapons systems.
The "Bushido" or "Chivalrous" codes of warfare, killing military
adversaries, not civilians, have been turned into some kind of new-age
"Electronic-Bushido" ethic by the US Defense Department and their paid
civilian contractors. In other words, technology will make warfare
ethical, because US technology will destroy only military targets.
Pure bullshit. Bombs aren't smart enough to distinguish between the
guility and the innocent. They just blow stuff up - people and
property. Where bombs are used people will die. To eliminate bomb
problems, eliminate bombings. To eliminate military "ethics"
problems, eliminate military invasions. Yes?
In any event, there has probably never been warfare without civilian
casualties, and there probably never will be. Electronic-Bushido
propoganda nonwithstanding, killing military people is still killing
people, even under the Utopian conditions of zero "civilian"
casualties. Arguing details is pointless - it simply legitimizes
warfare as a civilized solution, because civilized people get sucked
into military arguments. That's the only real point to these "public
debates" as far as I can see - the legitimization of US military
attacks on soverign nations who pose no military threat to the US, and
justification for the purchase of ever more expensive and destructive
weapons systems.
This is one area where I would love to see erstwhile Republican
warriors practice what they preach - "Just Say No".
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
Nice points, Dirk. I agree about the decentralization empowered by
technologies like internet. At the same time though, information
exchange of any kind, entertainment, financial, technical, et. al., is
subject to control by a limited number of IT and media kingpins.
Monopolizing the market on information, as it were, via mergers,
buy-outs, consolidations and such.
Like the old saying, "knowledge is power", but in the IT age knowledge
is information, so more aptly perhaps, "information is power".
I think the successful development of any type of electronic
federation would have to address the loss of power by IT/media
kingpins, and the stumbling blocks they would deploy to prevent free
information exchange, and no profits to them.
Regards,
Dangerdave
Robert
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >Typical attitude I would exspect from you. Concidering that most U.S troops
> >commited acts of pernicious perversion
Merlin is a pathetic idiot imbecile- another worthless piece of trash that
drifts into political threads wherever they may be. Pernicious perversion- I
guess the idiot is trying to rhyme.
> Well, the morality argument is one you cannot win and aren't intended
> to.
Well maybe we should let you visit some of the really nice people the US has
bombed recently. They'll be just standing 'round a smokin' and a jokin' to see
who won the bet over whether you first bleed to death or choke on your scrotum
they just cut off and shoved down your throat.
> The wellspring for most western warfare and weapons system
> "effectiveness" and "morality" information is the US Defense
> Department.
Who the hell else would it be?-Health and Human Services?
> The "Bushido" or "Chivalrous" codes of warfare, killing military
> adversaries, not civilians, have been turned into some kind of new-age
> "Electronic-Bushido" ethic by the US Defense Department and their paid
> civilian contractors. In other words, technology will make warfare
> ethical, because US technology will destroy only military targets.
There you go advertising that ignorance again!- civilians *were* military
targets in feudal times. The most effective way for feuding nobles to "get back"
at one another was to rampage over and kill the other's peasants. Also ethics is
a philosophy for intelligent people and not to be confused with a code of
loyalty mostly demanding blind obedience sworn to by some mindless warrior
automaton - so you're confused on this too.
> Pure bullshit.
You said it!
> Bombs aren't smart enough to distinguish between the
> guility and the innocent. They just blow stuff up - people and
> property. Where bombs are used people will die. To eliminate bomb
> problems, eliminate bombings. To eliminate military "ethics"
> problems, eliminate military invasions. Yes?
Oh yes- this is like saying eliminate gravity so that we don't have the air
pollution of jet engines. You are such a logical guy! I see it now...
> In any event, there has probably never been warfare without civilian
> casualties, and there probably never will be. Electronic-Bushido
> propoganda nonwithstanding, killing military people is still killing
> people, even under the Utopian conditions of zero "civilian"
> casualties. Arguing details is pointless - it simply legitimizes
> warfare as a civilized solution, because civilized people get sucked
> into military arguments.
Even an animal recognizes its obligation to kill if necessary to protect its
young. Why don't you extend this a bit and see that you have not even achieved
this status.
> That's the only real point to these "public
> debates" as far as I can see - the legitimization of US military
> attacks on soverign nations who pose no military threat to the US, and
> justification for the purchase of ever more expensive and destructive
> weapons systems.
Well you really must apply some predictive forecasting into properly evaluating
just exactly what is or is not a threat mustn't you? No one sees the US taking
military action these days without global approval and mandate. You make it
sound like the US is just champing at the bit waiting for the slightest excuse
to exercise its military muscle. Nothing could be further from the truth. These
interventions are extremely costly and every possible economic, political, and
diplomatic influence is brought to bear and must clearly fail before military
action is considered. You are very confused and you obviously know nothing of
weapon development.
dang...@earthlink.net
things for your fine education (no satire intended) to work through.
The intrinsic problem with good solutions is that businesses can't
make them. Business success is measured in terms of profit, and
business leadership must satisfy major stockholders and board members.
Most people have values in addition to money, like quality of life,
health, happiness, family, environment, entertainment, personal
development, and so on. These don't factor into optimization
systems based on profit. Ergo, profit-based systems can never
provide good solutions.
I believe this may be proveable. I'll give it a stab, using word
logic only. To optimize a system based on profit, things of
importance must be assigned numerical values in monetary units to
render them numerically optimizable. If important things cannot be
assigned numerical monetary values, they cannot be included in
profit-based numerical optimization systems. If important things
exist, not included in optimization systems, then optimization systems
cannot provide satisfactory solutions for important things.
To prove profit optimization systems can *never* satisfactorily
optimize real things of importance, one need merely demonstrate real
things of importance impossible to value satisfactorily in monetary
units. Fair enough?
With that in mind: What's the dollar value of human life? What's
the value of childrens' lives? What's the value of life on earth?
What's the value of history, music, sports, art, literature? What's
the dollar value of ones health and happiness, or that of spouse,
children, family and friends, even strangers with whom humanity is
merely shared?
If these and many other things are important to people, yet cannot be
assigned monetary units in satisfactory ways, capitalism can *never*
satisfactorily optimize things of real importance to people. Sound
logical? (1)
Whether a bean counter or an engineer is at the helm, the basic
limitations of capitalistic systems may always make good business
solutions rare. I believe the good stuff simply cannot be factored
into business solutions given capitalistic definitions of success -
monetary profit to ownership and top management.
The underlying problems seem to be 1) oversimplification of complex
systems, and 2) optimization over too few variables. US businesses
basically optimize for profit. It's the dominant, sometimes the only
variable. But real life, as we all know, is a very complex thing, and
many "variables" are held as important by individuals. Optimize
based on only a tiny subset of the important variables, and, no
surprise here, the solution will be a bad one. Some might call it
flat out stupid, like optimizing a complex analog or digital design
based soley on resistor wattages. Bound to fail.
Don't much matter who holds the reins when the system's rotten.
That's why I think the engineer vs. beancounter at the helm arguments
are probably not the most important reasons that you often see
businesses making bad decisions. Top management is an excercise in
highly constrained decision making. Too little room to maneuver. Too
few definitions for success.
Fix the system, and intelligent people are enabled to do good things.
Doesn't prove they *will* do good things, but a least they are *able*
to do good things. As things stand now, businesses often *can't* do
good things - impossible given the ruleset.
Regards,
Dangerdave
(1) Probably the reason you often find economic gurus and other
species of new-age-financial-wizard struggling to redefine motherly
love in dollar units, including lots of partial differential equations
and things inscrutable to average persons. If they can't reduce
important things to dollar signs, it follows they are of limited
usefulness. Even worse, capitalistic economics may not be a science,
merely a political system <shudder - gasp>.
Robert Strand
> is information, so more aptly perhaps, "information is power".
Well that doesn't look good then does it, check this out:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dilbert's "Salary Theorem" states that "Engineers and Scientists can
> never
> earn as much as Business Executives and Sales people."
>
> This theorem can now be supported by a mathematical equation based on
> the
> following two postulates:
>
> Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power
> Postulate 2: Time is Money
>
> As every Engineer knows: Power = Work / Time
>
> Since: Knowledge = Power
> Time = Money
> Knowledge = Work / Money
>
> Solving for Money, we get:
>
> Money = Work / Knowledge
>
> Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches Infinity,
> regardless of
> the amount of work done.
>
> Conclusion:
> The less you know, the more you make.
So the next time I go for a job, I'm going to tell them I don't know anything
Regards
Rob
Daniel Haude
Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote
in Msg. <38B33C96...@earthlink.net>
| Merlin is a pathetic idiot imbecile- another worthless piece of trash that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Well maybe we should let you visit some of the really nice people the US has
| bombed recently. They'll be just standing 'round a smokin' and a jokin' to see
| who won the bet over whether you first bleed to death or choke on your scrotum
| they just cut off and shoved down your throat.
Here we go again -- Robert, you seem to be completely surrounded by
Untermenschen, mere trash and filth. Go get 'em!
| Even an animal recognizes its obligation to kill if necessary to protect its
| young. Why don't you extend this a bit and see that you have not even achieved
| this status.
Uh-oh! Sorry to lerarn that even dangerdave, whose postings I used to like
so much, is a sub-animal. Thanks for pointing it out, Robert!
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
Merlin
"Robert" <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:38B312E2...@earthlink.net...
> You're pretty opinionated for someone who knows absolutely and has a 5 second
> concentration span. Merlin- so you like this film do you?- well magic is what it
> will take for you to achieve the intelligence level of a chimpanzee.
By your somewhat insulting reply, you are either a nasty piece of work who
insults people when you don't have anything intelligent to say or you have
reached the limit of your chimpanzee intelligence. Whatever the case maybe
it is obvious to me that your the type of guy, who should be avoided at all
costs.
>You're not a contributor to this NG so why don't you drift on
> and loiter somewhere else.
Do YOU own this newsgroup ?
Do I need to ask YOU permission to use it ?
Just because unlike yourself I don't always reply to messages or send them
for that matter, doesn't mean I should not take the newsgroup. The internet
and the newsgroups are a free medium to which we should be thankful for,
but sadly people like you seem to feel that they should have control and start
acting like dictators who approve and disapprove people when they contribute
to the newsgroup. I think the only person who should go and loiter somewhere
else is yourself as you have started to behave like a dictator.
Merlin
Merlin
> > >Typical attitude I would exspect from you. Concidering that most U.S troops
> > >commited acts of pernicious perversion
> Merlin is a pathetic idiot imbecile- another worthless piece of trash that
> drifts into political threads wherever they may be. Pernicious perversion- I
> guess the idiot is trying to rhyme.
The only pathetic trash is you Robert. You have resulted to the typical
action of man who is loosing a argument that he could never win, that's
to insult people by calling them a pathetic idiot imbecile when you do not
agree with there views. Dangerdave don't bother to continue with this
discussion as Robert will only disagree with your views and insult your
intelligence or you as an individual.
Pernicious perversion means the most wicked act's of false justice,
sexual perversion and political gain which could be carried out.
Merlin
dang...@earthlink.net
> Dangerdave don't bother to continue with this
>discussion as Robert will only disagree with your views and insult your
>intelligence or you as an individual.
I've known that for some time.
Many newsgroup have this type of problem. Normally it seems to be
handled by ignoring those who employ personal attacks and flames.
It's not a big deal, unless you take internet personas seriously.
For virtual entertainment, I like the PC strategy games. Some gaming
AI's generate pretty good insults if you're into that sort of thing.
I prefer USENET as a format for information exchange related to the
newsgroup topic. If, for some reason, I developed a wish to
participate in insult contests, I would probably do so in chat rooms,
or perhaps in the on-line gaming forums, where you can verbally trash
others and cyber-kill them with death rays and such.
Throwing personal insults in a group like SED, the most likely
response is silence.
Regards,
Dangerdave
dang...@earthlink.net
forgone conclusion. Agreed?
What came after, in terms of ethics, was more or less what warfare
always produces, death and destruction.
Why point the finger and say "A" participant is morally justified, and
"B" participant is not? It's the adoption of warfare as an acceptable
means of arbitration among nations that is the root cause for
ethically disturbing results. "Ethical warfare" is oxymoronic.
Regards,
Dangerdave
Jan Panteltje
me zecrett lab Im wurking on the open drain MOSFET connected to ze buttton.
Now wehn ze przident dizides not to push ze buttton, the 4040 timer
will exprier and the gates be drifen Positv-
Robert
attracts. This guy is laughable and couldn't find a sponsor to pay him $0.25/hr to
sit on a park bench. Why didn't you quote Merlin's statement about nuking the US and
US GI's being pernicious perverts? I notice that people like and d'dave NEVER
contribute a specific engineering post- it is all vague generality with your kind.
You, Daniel Haude, are garbage- and your particular pollution is ignorance and
sophomoric misplaced cynicism. Sorry to disillusion you but a majority does not put
you in the right or even make you acceptable so go to hell you feeble little
pop-culture pseudointellectual wannabe academic.
Daniel Haude wrote:
[...usual worthless garbage...]
Robert
Merlin wrote:
> "Robert" <rom...@earthlink.net>
>
> > > >Typical attitude I would exspect from you. Concidering that most U.S troops
> > > >commited acts of pernicious perversion
>
> > Merlin is a pathetic idiot imbecile- another worthless piece of trash that
> > drifts into political threads wherever they may be. Pernicious perversion- I
> > guess the idiot is trying to rhyme.
>
You were presenting blatant falshoods as fact- this is not a presentation of your
views. Your views would entail a personal conclusion based upon your perception of
the facts. You are too much of a juvenile idiot to figure this out. Your conclusion
was that the US should be nuked. In consideration of this misinformation and lunatic
conclusion, your post is pure newsgroup pollution- and you are a pollution
source-garbage, in other words. Why don't you provide us with substantiation of your
information about the US in Vietnam, and why you would begin to believe nuking the
US is a conclusion?
So go off to your sofa, you pizza stuffing, over-fed, illiterate, video-phile and
stay off the NG.
Robert
dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Many newsgroup have this type of problem. Normally it seems to be
> handled by ignoring those who employ personal attacks and flames.
The problem is off-topic posts- maybe YOU should take a count.
Dirk Bruere
<dang...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s=GzOIXV76ApnDl...@4ax.com...
subsequent choices are between degrees of evil.
Dirk
Bob Penoyer
>After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, US participation in WWII was a
>forgone conclusion. Agreed?
>
>What came after, in terms of ethics, was more or less what warfare
>always produces, death and destruction.
>
>Why point the finger and say "A" participant is morally justified, and
>"B" participant is not?
Because if "A" is fighting to destroy freedom and democracy and "B" is
fighting to save it, there is no moral equivalence between "A" and
"B".
If "A" breaks into your home and threatens your family with a gun, and
you ("B") shoot him, he is not morally justified but you are--no
matter how repugnant it may be to shoot someone.
>It's the adoption of warfare as an acceptable
>means of arbitration among nations that is the root cause for
>ethically disturbing results. "Ethical warfare" is oxymoronic.
War inheres in human existence. We will never be rid of it. If we
aren't prepared to fight wars we had better be prepared for the
consequences of losing.
Robert
Merlin wrote: [..gibberish...]
It is clear from this and other posts that an apology is in order. Merlin, if you are a
homebound mentally defective type then you so state in a private e-mail so that
embarrassments like this can be avoided.
Merlin
> > Dangerdave don't bother to continue with this
> >discussion as Robert will only disagree with your views and insult your
> >intelligence or you as an individual.
>
> I've known that for some time.
>
> Many newsgroup have this type of problem. Normally it seems to be
> handled by ignoring those who employ personal attacks and flames.
Thankfully whatever you think of Bill Gate's, he has provided a
Blocksender function on his software and Merlin's is already activated.
It means I don't get to see his reply's to my answers.
> It's not a big deal, unless you take internet personas seriously.
Yes.. It's not realy a big deal. I use a false name as you do, doesn't mean
anything to tell the truth. People come and go, you will never meet them or
even think about them beyond the keyboard.
> For virtual entertainment, I like the PC strategy games. Some gaming
> AI's generate pretty good insults if you're into that sort of thing.
> I prefer USENET as a format for information exchange related to the
> newsgroup topic. If, for some reason, I developed a wish to
> participate in insult contests, I would probably do so in chat rooms,
> or perhaps in the on-line gaming forums, where you can verbally trash
> others and cyber-kill them with death rays and such.
Agree, I have not interest in insult contest's, but if I want to participate
in such an activity I would do the same as yourself.
> Throwing personal insults in a group like SED, the most likely
> response is silence.
I agree, most people by now would have used the blocksender function
and forgotten that he ever exsisted.
He sent me an Email which I had a quick look at, full of same old rubbish
so deleted it.
> Regards,
> Dangerdave
Merlin
Daniel Haude
Robert <rom...@earthlink.net> wrote
in Msg. <38B44DFA...@earthlink.net>
| Why didn't you quote Merlin's statement about nuking the US
| and US GI's being pernicious perverts?
Because I wanted to point out how quick on the trigger you are yourself
when it comes to denying people's right to live -- which you even do based
on a couple Usenet postings. But what the hell do you care, abyhow: From
your point of view, 90% of those US GI's have pretty good chances of being
"worthless pieces of trash" anyway.
| You, Daniel Haude, are garbage-
See? You did it again.
I'm garbage ike everybody else who doesn't agree with your political
views. By your standards, Humanity is divided in two groups: "worthless
thrash" and "garbage" on one side, and people like you on the other.
You're surrounded by sub-humans, mere animals (sometimes not even that,
like poor dangerdave). What a pathetic life you must lead.
Your real problem is that you're unable to engage in any kind of political
argument (which is pretty OT on this group, anyway) without having resort
to name-calling of the lowest nature. Why don't you just can it and
restrict yourself to topics that don't get you slavering so much.
Bill Sloman
Bob Penoyer <rpen...@NOSPAMieee.org> wrote:
> dang...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, US participation in WWII was a
> >forgone conclusion. Agreed?
> >
> >What came after, in terms of ethics, was more or less what warfare
> >always produces, death and destruction.
> >
> >Why point the finger and say "A" participant is morally justified,
> >and "B" participant is not?
>
> Because if "A" is fighting to destroy freedom and democracy and "B" is
> fighting to save it, there is no moral equivalence between "A" and
> "B".
Unfortunately, everybody is fighting to preserve "freedom and (their
idea of) democracy". Truth is the first casualty of war, and hanging
your moral status on the rightness of your ideology invites you to get
shot by the winners for backing the wrong ideology.
> If "A" breaks into your home and threatens your family with a gun, and
> you ("B") shoot him, he is not morally justified but you are--no
> matter how repugnant it may be to shoot someone.
Yes, but some societies seem to find ways of discouraging people
from breaking into houses with guns that don't involve you keeping
a gun in the house, with the attendant - statistically more dangerous -
risk of gun-related mortality within the household.
> >It's the adoption of warfare as an acceptable
> >means of arbitration among nations that is the root cause for
> >ethically disturbing results. "Ethical warfare" is oxymoronic.
>
> War inheres in human existence. We will never be rid of it. If we
> aren't prepared to fight wars we had better be prepared for the
> consequences of losing.
We may never be rid of it, and that is the way that military
intelligence is paid to think, but there are other ways of handling
conflict that aren't as destructive and wasteful, and if we keep on
working at it we may finally reduce "war" to the suppression of tiny
bands of psychopaths. At the moment there are all too many psychopaths
in positions of political power ...
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.