The SOB that helped IT jobs move to India is dead!

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 25, 2004, 5:30:28 PM1/25/04

to

B-)

Newsgroups: alt.obituaries
Subject: Norman Dahl, Helped India Go High-Tech, 85
Date: 25 Jan 2004 13:55:25 -0800

Dr. Norman Dahl, who helped bring computer technology to Kanpur,
India, died of Alzheimer's disease on January 11, 2004, at Fairlawn
Nursing Home in Lexington, Massachusetts, at the age of 85.

When India's prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for help in starting an institute of
technology in 1961, MIT promptly turned to Dr. Norman C. Dahl.

A professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, Dr. Dahl had not only
the intellectual skills required, but the human skills as well.

The 85-year-old was a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Block
Island, Rhode Island [and Providence Plantations]. The success of the
Indian Institute of Technology at Kanpur, with graduates now spanning
the world as professors, engineers, computer scientists, and
entrepreneurs, remains a tribute, friends said, to Dr. Dahl's
diligence and ability to connect with people.

"Norman was a powerful servant of American international policy and
practical effort and, in short, a serving citizen of not one but
several countries in his time," said Harvard economist John Kenneth
Galbraith, the US ambassador to India when Dr. Dahl was there from
1962 to 1964. "Perhaps the most spectacular achievement of the early
days of the IIT/Kanpur was its contribution to the computer revolution
of India -- now a commonplace," Galbraith said. "Not often, and
perhaps not ever, has an economic and technical effort so rewarded
both the donor country and the major recipient."

Dr. Dahl's wife, Dorothy (Sweet), said the gift by IBM to IIT/Kanpur
in 1963 of a computer was "perhaps the first computer in a teaching
institution in the subcontinent."

Four other technology institutes, established by India, Germany,
Russia, and Britain, still flourish in India. But according to MIT
professor Arvind Mithal, a graduate of IIT/Kanpur, "The American model
dominates them all, and Norman was, perhaps, the most important to
it."

While other engineering schools existed before the IITs, Mithal said,
"the IITs revolutionized engineering education in India. The American
model was different from the existing schools because it was not like
[learning] a trade but was deeply embedded in science.

"Norman was a brilliant administrator and utterly charming," Mithal
said. "He connected with people. His attitude was, 'Let's see what
works.'"

Under Dr. Dahl's setup, the IIT was run by Indians, instead of
Americans.

Rama Dasari, associate director of an MIT laboratory, agreed.
"Norman's particular talent was in delegating," he said. "He allowed
the best to come out of the Indian administrators while the American
professors stayed in the background."

Dr. Dahl, his wife, and their two young children stayed in Kanpur for
two years. While there, his wife helped start a school for children of
institute workers. The family would return to India in 1968 for three
years, when Dr. Dahl was appointed the Ford Foundation's deputy
representative on projects dealing with over-population, education,
agriculture, and urban planning.

Dr. Dahl was born in Seattle, one of three sons of a Norwegian-born
father who once panned for gold in Alaska and a Norwegian-American
mother. In his senior year at the University of Washington, Dr. Dahl
was the first engineering student and non-fraternity member to be
elected president of the student body. He graduated with a degree in
civil engineering.

At the start of World War II, Dr. Dahl was at Princeton University
with the Passive Protection Against Bombing, a committee of the Office
of Scientific Research and Development.

The Dahls were married in 1943, and Mrs. Dahl, also, took a position
at Princeton. Later, Dr. Dahl became the only civilian assigned to the
staff of General Curtis LeMay, head of the US Air Force Strategic Air
Command on Guam, where air attacks on Japan were launched. "Norman was
provided with a document giving him the rank of major in the event of
his capture," his wife said.

In 1946, the Dahls moved to the Boston area when Dr. Dahl came to do
graduate study at MIT. He earned his doctorate of science in
mechanical engineering in 1952 and stayed on at MIT to teach. He was
appointed professor in the department of mechanical engineering in
1959.

That same year, Dr. Dahl co-edited, with MIT professor Stephen
Crandall, the textbook "An Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids,"
with chapters written by seven MIT professors. The text is still in
use today around the world.

The book was five years in the making, said Crandall, now retired.
"You can imagine that there might have been disagreement among the
authors and it was because of the humanity and good grace of Norman
Dahl that he was able to pour oil on rough waters. It was so typical
of Norman's approach to a problem to get everyone involved."

Dr. Dahl left MIT in 1968 and worked as a consultant in mechanical
engineering on projects that took the Dahls around the world. "If
Norman had to make a choice," his wife said, "it was always the
adventurous one."

In 1969, the Dahls bought a home on Block Island, where Dr. Dahl not
only led a study of the island's water supply and its effect on the
island's development but served as a member of its sewer commission.
He was also involved in a study of Lyme disease on the island. Besides
his wife, Dr. Dahl leaves a son, Christian, of King Ferry, N.Y.; a
daughter, Sabra, of Cambridge; and three grandchildren.

Andrew McLaren

unread,

Jan 26, 2004, 3:26:41 AM1/26/04

to

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:

> B-)

I hope that smiley indicates your post was intended to be uh, ironic; or
possibly facetious.

Norman Dahl made a significant contribution to the development of
Information Technology in India. But we could hardly "blame" him, for lost
IT jobs in the developed nations. The rise of Indian IT (and indeed IT in
many so-called developing nations) is a complex story with many strands and
players. More importantly, it's a trend whose time has come; driven by
economics and circumstances, as much as by individuals.

Many south Asians (in the broad sense: Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans,
Bangladeshis) have contributed greatly to computer science, mathemetics and
engineering. You only have to pick up any journal and scan the list of
authors. India in particular has a very good education system, and a strong
mathematical tradition that goes back millenia.

India is only the edge of the wedge - we can expect to see huge movement of
IT work to south Asia, Eastern Europe and East Asia, especially China, in
coming decades. So, I'd recommend getting used to the idea.

I regret sending a post that will, undoubtedly, attract a few flames. But
your post sounded (unintentionally or not) like a rather nasty kick at the
recently deceased Dr Dahl; which would be grossly disrespectful - *de
mortuis, nil nisi bonum!* Also I wouldn't Indian colleagues to think we're
all dismayed to see jobs going to India. Good on them, I say.

Andrew

Morten Reistad

unread,

Jan 26, 2004, 6:41:49 AM1/26/04

to

In article <Xns947CC5D4...@211.29.133.50>,

Andrew McLaren <amc...@optusnet.n0$pam.com.au> wrote:
>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
>> B-)
>
>I hope that smiley indicates your post was intended to be uh, ironic; or
>possibly facetious.
>
>Norman Dahl made a significant contribution to the development of
>Information Technology in India. But we could hardly "blame" him, for lost
>IT jobs in the developed nations. The rise of Indian IT (and indeed IT in
>many so-called developing nations) is a complex story with many strands and
>players. More importantly, it's a trend whose time has come; driven by
>economics and circumstances, as much as by individuals.

This happens in all industries. It is called development. And we should
have much more of it. For textiles it happened a century or so ago, but
we are still resisting this tide.

>Many south Asians (in the broad sense: Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans,
>Bangladeshis) have contributed greatly to computer science, mathemetics and
>engineering. You only have to pick up any journal and scan the list of
>authors. India in particular has a very good education system, and a strong
>mathematical tradition that goes back millenia.
>
>India is only the edge of the wedge - we can expect to see huge movement of
>IT work to south Asia, Eastern Europe and East Asia, especially China, in
>coming decades. So, I'd recommend getting used to the idea.

In eastern europe the EU will take in 10 new members soon. This is a
development on the size of the development of the American West.

If you are to have a secure job in the west you must have one where
you provide direct value for your customers. Not indirect; these will
be taken over.

The essence of this crisis is that the entire US and West European
computer industry has chosen to go for bland consumerism; for proof
just see the market share of windows.

China does this bland consumerism so much better. The clones have
decent quality, they are fully standardized, and there are no nasty
surprises like dell and HP love to spring on you. The only companies
that work for customer value are IBM. Sun and Apple. Outside of these
companies I haven't recommended an IT purchase that haven't been dominantly
chinese[1] in origin since Compaq swallowed DEC.

Where is it that open source gets their real boosts? It isn't America.
It is in China, Vietnam, India, Thailand, Scandinavia and some scattered
countries that is pushing open source these days. And IBM.
And, you know, we don't have to implement software patents to be
compliant with the Berne convention.

>I regret sending a post that will, undoubtedly, attract a few flames. But
>your post sounded (unintentionally or not) like a rather nasty kick at the
>recently deceased Dr Dahl; which would be grossly disrespectful - *de
>mortuis, nil nisi bonum!* Also I wouldn't Indian colleagues to think we're
>all dismayed to see jobs going to India. Good on them, I say.
>
>Andrew

-- mrr

[1]In this post I refer to China as a nation, even if it is divided into
four very different administrations. Five if we include Singapore.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 26, 2004, 9:27:43 AM1/26/04

to

In article <tdu2vb....@via.reistad.priv.no>,

Morten Reistad <firs...@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>In article <Xns947CC5D4...@211.29.133.50>,
>Andrew McLaren <amc...@optusnet.n0$pam.com.au> wrote:
>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>
>>> B-)
>>
>>I hope that smiley indicates your post was intended to be uh, ironic; or
>>possibly facetious.
>>
>>Norman Dahl made a significant contribution to the development of
>>Information Technology in India. But we could hardly "blame" him, for
lost
>>IT jobs in the developed nations. The rise of Indian IT (and indeed IT in
>>many so-called developing nations) is a complex story with many strands
and
>>players. More importantly, it's a trend whose time has come; driven by
>>economics and circumstances, as much as by individuals.
>
>This happens in all industries. It is called development.

Yup. I am not unhappy that the IT work has moved out. IMO and
IME, that kind of work is equivalent to hi-tech paper pushing.
It's necessary but a grand distraction if you want to build a
new thingie.

> .. And we should

>have much more of it. For textiles it happened a century or so ago, but
>we are still resisting this tide.

Yup. It's pretty difficult getting kids excited about how a black
box works if there's no lid on it.

>
>>Many south Asians (in the broad sense: Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans,
>>Bangladeshis) have contributed greatly to computer science, mathemetics
and
>>engineering. You only have to pick up any journal and scan the list of
>>authors. India in particular has a very good education system, and a
strong
>>mathematical tradition that goes back millenia.
>>
>>India is only the edge of the wedge - we can expect to see huge movement
of
>>IT work to south Asia, Eastern Europe and East Asia, especially China, in
>>coming decades. So, I'd recommend getting used to the idea.
>
>In eastern europe the EU will take in 10 new members soon. This is a
>development on the size of the development of the American West.

That will be a good shot in the arm. Ny local news these days consists
only of poll results (and, if you hear a blast similar to an a-bomb,
that's me finally losing my mind). I hadn't heard that the 10
memberships had been approved.

>
>If you are to have a secure job in the west you must have one where
>you provide direct value for your customers. Not indirect; these will
>be taken over.
>
>The essence of this crisis is that the entire US and West European
>computer industry has chosen to go for bland consumerism; for proof
>just see the market share of windows.
>
>China does this bland consumerism so much better. The clones have
>decent quality, they are fully standardized, and there are no nasty
>surprises like dell and HP love to spring on you. The only companies
>that work for customer value are IBM. Sun and Apple. Outside of these
>companies I haven't recommended an IT purchase that haven't
>been dominantly chinese[1] in origin since Compaq swallowed DEC.

When we visited there, I was very impressed by their long-range
planning and patience.

>
>Where is it that open source gets their real boosts? It isn't America.
>It is in China, Vietnam, India, Thailand, Scandinavia and some scattered
>countries that is pushing open source these days. And IBM.
>And, you know, we don't have to implement software patents to be
>compliant with the Berne convention.
>
>>I regret sending a post that will, undoubtedly, attract a few flames. But
>>your post sounded (unintentionally or not) like a rather nasty kick at
the
>>recently deceased Dr Dahl; which would be grossly disrespectful - *de
>>mortuis, nil nisi bonum!* Also I wouldn't Indian colleagues to think
we're
>>all dismayed to see jobs going to India. Good on them, I say.
>>
>>Andrew
>
>-- mrr
>
>[1]In this post I refer to China as a nation, even if it is divided into
>four very different administrations. Five if we include Singapore.

Would you separate out Shanghai?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Morten Reistad

unread,

Jan 26, 2004, 6:04:15 PM1/26/04

to

In article <4015360d$0$7323$61fe...@news.rcn.com>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <tdu2vb....@via.reistad.priv.no>,
> Morten Reistad <firs...@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>In article <Xns947CC5D4...@211.29.133.50>,
>>Andrew McLaren <amc...@optusnet.n0$pam.com.au> wrote:
>>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> B-)

Now we start discussing the footnotes. Gibbon would be proud!

-- mrr
>>
>>[1]In this post I refer to China as a nation, even if it is divided into
>>four very different administrations. Five if we include Singapore.
>
>Would you separate out Shanghai?

besides the People's Republic (PRC, .ch domain, a.k.a. Red China)
ruling most of the mainland, then there is the Republic of China (ROC,
.tw domain, a.k.a. Taiwan) only ruling the province of Taiwan; and
then there is Hong Kong, (.hk) until 1997 a British colony, and
ruled until 2047 under a special deal. Likewise Macao (.mo), until
2000 a Portugese colony, ruled until 2050 under a similar deal as
Hong Kong. That makes 4.

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 4:33:09 PM1/27/04

to

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:

> Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
> the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who

Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.

These issues are somewhat intertwined, and it could be easy for the casual
observer to conflate them. But I thought a group like this one prizes
rigourous analytical thought, and leaves casual, simplistic answers for
talk-back radio and the like.

I don't get the reference to Kashmir. Kashmir is a mountainous and pretty
undeveloped region in the northwest, and is quite cold for half the year.
Most IT activity is in the southeast: Bangalore, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

Cheers
Andrew

PS: if you just think of it as jobs moving from baseball-playing countries
to the cricket-playing countries, things don't seem so bad. If Canada had
kept on playing cricket instead of adopting that hideous American baseball
thing, it would be much better off. When I was in Vancouver I visited the
Cricket ground down by the harbour - great place! I loved it like I loved
most of Canada ... but what a shame there was no cricket to be played
there.

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 27, 2004, 4:57:53 PM1/27/04

to

Andrew McLaren (amc...@optusnet.n0$pam.com.au) writes:
> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
>> Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
>> the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
>
> Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
> tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
> economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
> on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
> aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.

No confusion. I'd like the Indian folks to have skilled jobs too.
...

>
> I don't get the reference to Kashmir. Kashmir is a mountainous and pretty
> undeveloped region in the northwest, and is quite cold for half the year.
> Most IT activity is in the southeast: Bangalore, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
>

Umm, yes, I'm aware of that. Kashmir will become an IT hotspot as
soon as the locals start holding up punch cards from dugouts to use
bullets as hole punches, perhaps to compile a deck of random numbers.
(Ever worked on the target end of a cadet rifle range?)

>
> PS: if you just think of it as jobs moving from baseball-playing countries
> to the cricket-playing countries, things don't seem so bad. If Canada had
> kept on playing cricket

...
- the beer industry would be extinct;
- the cricket fields would stink of the rotting carcasses of out
fielders who died of boredom waiting for action, (in my experience);
- we would probably have that other "football" which seems to infest
cricket countries: soccer and all the organised hooligans.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 2:04:05 AM1/28/04

to

Andrew McLaren wrote:
>
> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
> > Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
> > the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
>
> Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
> tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
> economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
> on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
> aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
>

I see...so instead of India developing its own industries and competing,
it is justified in syphoning off the money and jobs from other countries.
Very moral and justified... :-(

>
> These issues are somewhat intertwined, and it could be easy for the casual
> observer to conflate them. But I thought a group like this one prizes
> rigourous analytical thought, and leaves casual, simplistic answers for
> talk-back radio and the like.
>

If I sold a gun to someone intent on committing murder...I would be
held responsible in some sense...for that murder. India is facilitating
the flow of jobs from the US to India. For this alone, they can *not*
be held blameless for the US job loss.

>
> I don't get the reference to Kashmir. Kashmir is a mountainous and pretty
> undeveloped region in the northwest, and is quite cold for half the year.
> Most IT activity is in the southeast: Bangalore, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
>

I guess he thought that since Kashmir is so far north, there would
be large heating bills associated with any company there.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

fcweed

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 2:47:39 AM1/28/04

to

Charles Richmond wrote:

> Andrew McLaren wrote:
>
>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
>>> the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
>>
>>Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
>>tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
>>economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
>>on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
>>aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
>>
>
> I see...so instead of India developing its own industries and competing,
> it is justified in syphoning off the money and jobs from other countries.
> Very moral and justified... :-(
>

So the thieves planting flags and the murderers carrying crosses in
colonial times *were* moral and justified? I don't see the Indians
invading and taking what they want by force.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 3:40:26 AM1/28/04

to

fcweed wrote:

You might want to review their history a bit. They haven't done much of
this in recent times mainly because they've lacked the military power to do
so.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rupert Pigott

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 4:57:18 AM1/28/04

to

"Charles Richmond" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:401779BA...@comcast.net...

> Andrew McLaren wrote:
> >
> > Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
> >
> > > Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
> > > the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
> >
> > Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
> > tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
> > economic view of business decisions, without considering the
ramifications
> > on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
> > aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
> >
> I see...so instead of India developing its own industries and competing,
> it is justified in syphoning off the money and jobs from other countries.
> Very moral and justified... :-(

Actually it's called competition. Shit happens. Something that
I can't recall seeing in afc on this issue is the concept that
the "captains of industry" (or "wankers" as I call them) may
actually be doing the right thing - for them at least.

The western markets are pretty much sewn up, what globalisation
is doing is opening up *new* markets for the wankers to exploit^W
sell into. Sure they're cutting the throats of their traditional
consumers, on the other hand they get brand new ones (and lots
more of them by head count too). China & India alone eclipse
the west in terms of headcount, imagine if you could sell every
one of them a PDA...

In the long run this might actually work out OK, because what
*may* happen if the wankers succeed is that they loosen their
strangleholds on their old markets. If that does happen then
we may well see a resurgence of choice and products that
actually fufill the customer's requirements. Hopefully it'll
end all this "consumer" BS too.

Cheers,
Rupert

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:43:09 AM1/28/04

to

Rupert Pigott wrote:

Minor nit--captains of industry don't need to wank--they can afford hot and
cold running hookers or buy themselves a trophy.

> Cheers,
> Rupert

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:40:12 AM1/28/04

to

In article <fd64vb...@via.reistad.priv.no>,
Morten Reistad <firs...@lastname.pr1v.no> wrote:

>In article <4015360d$0$7323$61fe...@news.rcn.com>, <jmfb...@aol.com>
wrote:
>>In article <tdu2vb....@via.reistad.priv.no>,
>> Morten Reistad <firs...@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>>In article <Xns947CC5D4...@211.29.133.50>,
>>>Andrew McLaren <amc...@optusnet.n0$pam.com.au> wrote:
>>>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> B-)
>
>Now we start discussing the footnotes. Gibbon would be proud!
>
>-- mrr
>>>
>>>[1]In this post I refer to China as a nation, even if it is divided into
>>>four very different administrations. Five if we include Singapore.
>>
>>Would you separate out Shanghai?
>
>besides the People's Republic (PRC, .ch domain, a.k.a. Red China)
>ruling most of the mainland, then there is the Republic of China (ROC,

>..tw domain, a.k.a. Taiwan) only ruling the province of Taiwan; and

>then there is Hong Kong, (.hk) until 1997 a British colony, and
>ruled until 2047 under a special deal. Likewise Macao (.mo), until
>2000 a Portugese colony, ruled until 2050 under a similar deal as
>Hong Kong. That makes 4.
>
>There aer 5 stars in the chinese flag. They must include some other
>place; and the only one I can think of must be Singapore. But
>ethnic chinese are no longer in a majority there.

Ah, you were talking political. I was thinking economical. I
think Shanghai is a location of Chinese experiment with
capitalism of some flavor. They do have to figure out how
to distill a form of capitalism that will work well with
their culture and not undermine their flavor of Communism.

Mel Wilson

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 8:08:48 AM1/28/04

to

In article <401779BA...@comcast.net>,
Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Andrew McLaren wrote:
>> Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
>> tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
>> economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
>> on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
>> aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
>>
>I see...so instead of India developing its own industries and competing,
>it is justified in syphoning off the money and jobs from other countries.
>Very moral and justified... :-(

After the business process is outsourced, can the
business be far behind?

Regards. Mel.

Christopher C. Stacy

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 10:08:02 AM1/28/04

to

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:04:05 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:

Charles> Andrew McLaren wrote:
>>
>> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>
>> > Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
>> > the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
>>
>> Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
>> tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
>> economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
>> on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
>> aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
>>

Charles> I see...so instead of India developing its own industries
Charles> and competing, it is justified in syphoning off the money
Charles> and jobs from other countries. Very moral and justified..:-(

I'm in the USA, and I agree that it's short-sighted for companies to
be moving jobs out of the country, and it seems to be adversly affecting
friends of mine, so I don't like it. But I don't understand your
statement above. It sounds like you are blaming the Indians simply
for competing, rather than the blaming certain Americans for deciding
to our jobs over to India. I especially don't understand what you
mean by their "own industries", as if the software industry was
somehow "owned" by someone and was being stolen away by firms in India.

The right to a job belongs to our own citizens, but that doesn't mean
India shouldn't be able to compete. It simply means that companies need
to decide on the value of having the work done by the local versus a
foreign populace. If there's some moral question, it would be about
the socio-economic effects of protectionism on the preferred state
versus the rest of the world. Enforcing that kind of power is supposed
to be why we have countries and international trade unions.

But none of this is new -- it's just that the industry is software,
rather than mechanical manufacturing. But when the software jobs
are all exported, this time there won't be any new industry coming
along to rescue the local economy.

It's also important to note that we're not talking about software
houses, as much as we're talking about software produced inside
companies who are in some other business. Such as manufacturing.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 1:23:50 PM1/28/04

to

No, it is *more* insidious that using force. Force the US could
deal with. Some of the Indians go to school in the US, then get
work their way up US businesses. After they are "head of IT" at
a company, it is fairly easy to hire other Indians in the US...
as well as shipping most work to India.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 1:27:55 PM1/28/04

to

Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

>
> Actually it's called competition. Shit happens. Something that
> I can't recall seeing in afc on this issue is the concept that
> the "captains of industry" (or "wankers" as I call them) may
> actually be doing the right thing - for them at least.
>

Screwing over their old consumer and worker base is *not*
in their long-term interests economically. The stupid wankers
just can't see that...

>
> The western markets are pretty much sewn up, what globalisation
> is doing is opening up *new* markets for the wankers to exploit^W
> sell into. Sure they're cutting the throats of their traditional
> consumers, on the other hand they get brand new ones (and lots
> more of them by head count too). China & India alone eclipse
> the west in terms of headcount, imagine if you could sell every
> one of them a PDA...
>

And as being one of those "traditional consumers" and workers,
I think it is understandable...that I am screaming to high
heaven about this atrocity.

With the income in China and India...a PDA seems pretty out
of reach. Unless you want to skip eating for a few months.

>
> In the long run this might actually work out OK, because what
> *may* happen if the wankers succeed is that they loosen their
> strangleholds on their old markets. If that does happen then
> we may well see a resurgence of choice and products that
> actually fufill the customer's requirements. Hopefully it'll
> end all this "consumer" BS too.
>

If this keeps up, there won't *be* any consumers in the US
to buy the myriad of products that are offered. Even at half
the price for goods, if I have *no* money...I will *not* be
purchasing any.

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 1:29:26 PM1/28/04

to

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:47:39 -0600, fcweed <fcw...@mail.com> wrote:
>So the thieves planting flags and the murderers carrying crosses in
>colonial times *were* moral and justified? I don't see the Indians
>invading and taking what they want by force.
>

They're trying to in Kashmir :-)

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 12:02:04 PM1/28/04

to

In article <10752838...@saucer.planet.gong>
r...@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk (Rupert Pigott) writes:

>The western markets are pretty much sewn up, what globalisation
>is doing is opening up *new* markets for the wankers to exploit^W
>sell into. Sure they're cutting the throats of their traditional
>consumers, on the other hand they get brand new ones (and lots
>more of them by head count too). China & India alone eclipse
>the west in terms of headcount, imagine if you could sell every
>one of them a PDA...
>
>In the long run this might actually work out OK, because what
>*may* happen if the wankers succeed is that they loosen their
>strangleholds on their old markets. If that does happen then
>we may well see a resurgence of choice and products that
>actually fufill the customer's requirements. Hopefully it'll
>end all this "consumer" BS too.

I don't follow your reasoning. Why should expanding into a larger
market loosen the wankers' stranglehold on the old one? The purpose
of the exercise is to get a stranglehold on _all_ markets. As far
as they're concerned, we have too many choices already; if we don't
like what they're offering us in North America, we can go offshore.
They want to close that loophole and ensure that no matter where
in the world we go, we'll be forced to use their same old shit.

BTW I agree with you about the "consumer" BS. In fact, I'm quite
offended by the term "consumer" - it implies that our only duty is
to consume, and if that means that we must throw away a perfectly
working piece of hardware of software in favour of a new product
that is junk, it's all right and proper in the name of Sales.
("Dulce et decorum est...")

But let's face it - they had to get rid of that word "customer".
It was carrying all sorts of unwanted baggage, like "...is always
right."

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 1:37:45 PM1/28/04

to

"Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:04:05 GMT, Charles Richmond ("Charles") writes:
>
> Charles> Andrew McLaren wrote:
> >>
> >> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nope. Never heard of the guy before. No, I'm severely grumpy about
> >> > the gutting of "western" economies by the Captains of Industry who
> >>
> >> Aha. I think you're actually confusing two separate issues: first, a
> >> tendency among the "captains of industry" to take an short-term, ultra-
> >> economic view of business decisions, without considering the ramifications
> >> on society and longer-term viability; and second, the legitimate
> >> aspirations of India not to be unfairly excluded from modern industry.
> >>
>
> Charles> I see...so instead of India developing its own industries
> Charles> and competing, it is justified in syphoning off the money
> Charles> and jobs from other countries. Very moral and justified..:-(
>
> I'm in the USA, and I agree that it's short-sighted for companies to
> be moving jobs out of the country, and it seems to be adversly affecting
> friends of mine, so I don't like it. But I don't understand your
> statement above. It sounds like you are blaming the Indians simply
> for competing, rather than the blaming certain Americans for deciding
> to our jobs over to India. I especially don't understand what you
> mean by their "own industries", as if the software industry was
> somehow "owned" by someone and was being stolen away by firms in India.
>

The Indians are lobbying the American companies to get these jobs...
the Indians can *not* get the jobs move to India fast enough. I just
find it unprincipled...*not* only that they take the jobs, but the
methods that they use.

Using a union example: Scabs are legitimate competition, but they
are *not* generally held in high regard.

>
> The right to a job belongs to our own citizens, but that doesn't mean
> India shouldn't be able to compete. It simply means that companies need
> to decide on the value of having the work done by the local versus a
> foreign populace. If there's some moral question, it would be about
> the socio-economic effects of protectionism on the preferred state
> versus the rest of the world. Enforcing that kind of power is supposed
> to be why we have countries and international trade unions.
>

And I guess that is why we need a Programmer's Guild.

>
> But none of this is new -- it's just that the industry is software,
> rather than mechanical manufacturing. But when the software jobs
> are all exported, this time there won't be any new industry coming
> along to rescue the local economy.
>

And the US government does *not* care that it's economic engine
is being gutted??? I find this astonishing...

>
> It's also important to note that we're not talking about software
> houses, as much as we're talking about software produced inside
> companies who are in some other business. Such as manufacturing.
>

Yes, only now the software *and* manufacturing will *both* be
done overseas.

While I'm at it, another thing I am against...is allowing too
many foreign students into the US to go to university. IMHO each
foreign student should be required to subsidize the education of
*five* US students...before the foreign student could be admitted.
And there should be *absolute* caps on the number of foreign
students at US universities at any one time...

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 2:31:46 PM1/28/04

to

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:40:26 -0500, J. Clarke <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>fcweed wrote:
>>
>> So the thieves planting flags and the murderers carrying crosses in
>> colonial times *were* moral and justified? I don't see the Indians
>> invading and taking what they want by force.
>
>You might want to review their history a bit. They haven't done much of
>this in recent times mainly because they've lacked the military power to do
>so.

You might want to take a look at the goings on in Kashmir, for example.
I've heard a bit about it from a Pakistani friend who is not long back
from that part of the world, although it seems to me both sides are
equally to blame, and the poor old Kashmiris are left out of the
equation, of course :-)

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 2:31:47 PM1/28/04

to

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:27:55 GMT, Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>With the income in China and India...a PDA seems pretty out
>of reach. Unless you want to skip eating for a few months.

Depends who, and where, in those countries. I believe China is the fastest
growing market for such things.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 28, 2004, 6:51:50 PM1/28/04

to

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

>
> I don't follow your reasoning. Why should expanding into a larger
> market loosen the wankers' stranglehold on the old one? The purpose
> of the exercise is to get a stranglehold on _all_ markets. As far
> as they're concerned, we have too many choices already; if we don't
> like what they're offering us in North America, we can go offshore.
> They want to close that loophole and ensure that no matter where
> in the world we go, we'll be forced to use their same old shit.
>

The "new market" loosens the strangle-hold on the old market...
because the old market is severely degraded. Since so many
are out of work, the old market goes down hill fast!!!

>
> BTW I agree with you about the "consumer" BS. In fact, I'm quite
> offended by the term "consumer" - it implies that our only duty is
> to consume, and if that means that we must throw away a perfectly
> working piece of hardware of software in favour of a new product
> that is junk, it's all right and proper in the name of Sales.
> ("Dulce et decorum est...")
>
> But let's face it - they had to get rid of that word "customer".
> It was carrying all sorts of unwanted baggage, like "...is always
> right."
>

Right...we have gone from "the customer is always right" to
"the consumer is always a sheep to be sheared". And you are
also right...we should *never* have to throw away something
that works. It is the responsibility for industry to make sure
that our products are properly obsoleted in the required time.
Obsolete means broken or too slow and disfunctional to work
with the lastest applications.

Morten Reistad

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 4:29:10 AM1/29/04

to

In article <ki7h105rkprnhq9d2...@4ax.com>,

Giles Todd <g...@todd.nu> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:27:55 GMT, Charles Richmond
><rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> If this keeps up, there won't *be* any consumers in the US
>> to buy the myriad of products that are offered. Even at half
>> the price for goods, if I have *no* money...I will *not* be
>> purchasing any.
>

>That's the 'liquidity trap', when the central bank is supposed to
>start printing money. Unfortunately, the Fed had a premature
>ejaculation, for what reason I can only speculate (my own speculation
>involves the age of the governors and the likely composition of their
>pension arrangements, but to be more specific on such speculations
>would probably be libellous).

The Federal Reserve Board is jealously guarding their independence,
and wouldn't fall for any such thing. They had a lot of problems with
how to handle the 2000 bubble; and whether to puncture it or not.
Instead of a puncture they tried a slow squeeze; but it still unraveled
a lot faster than anyone would have liked. The liquidity trap still
happened, and then they reduced rates to 60-year lows.

There is a lot of blame to be assigned around the 2000 bubble, but
the destination is not the Greenspan team. They have done their best
to try to fix things.

>At the moment, you are relying heavily on foreigners' belief that the
>dollar is worth more than the Brazilian real (just as an example --
>almost any other currency would do as another example [OK, not
>Zimbabwe dollars while Mugabe stays in power]).

The effects of what is called Seniority probably carries the day
for the US now. This is the effect of having the currency that
everyone else [1] use as a reference, and where a dominant part
of the world trade takes place. This adds a lot of liquidity to
the US dollar market. The US can also issue currency that the rest
of the world in practice treat as an interest-free (or low-interest)
loan to the US.

[1] China has changed to using the Euro as their preferred
external reserve and settlement currency.

>As Ben Bernanke suggested a couple of years ago, there are
>unconventional methods whereby the Fed can print more dollars while
>pretending not to, but in the current environment you would then be
>looking at exchange rates of USD 2 or 3 to the Euro (with similar
>revaluations with respect to other currencies), and even that assumes
>that confidence in US financial responsibility would still remain in
>being. Mind you, such a policy would, for a while, screw up
>international trade far better than all the tariffs the protectionists
>could devise, so it's probably not a bad bi-partisan policy for either
>Republicans or Democrats seeking election.

The US dollar now has realistic competition for the first time since
1944. The Euro is big enouigh to take on such functions.

Otherwise, if the dollar rate is readjusted to a level of 2 to the
Euro I would call that a Devaluation, not a revaluation.

If the US currenct were to take such a nosedive I gather a lot of
trade and settlement would move to the Euro. This would lead to
imploding effects as the foreigners in reality stopped lending
the US their money for free, and instead lend them to the EU.

>Maybe it's the answer to the outsourcing 'crisis' in the US. Devalue
>the currency until US workers become cheaper than Indian or Chinese
>workers. Petrol prices would go up, though. C'est la vie.

It will also expose the areas of the US economy where imports
are important. I understand that this is a pretty large fraction
of the economy now.

So, realigning dollar rates is a matter of carefully nudging the
rates down. This has been done with reasonable success too. Score
another one for the Feds.

-- mrr

Sean Case

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 6:16:56 AM1/29/04

to

In article <40181A00...@comcast.net>,
Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Screwing over their old consumer and worker base is *not*
> in their long-term interests economically.

In the long term, they're off to the next company...

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 8:18:53 AM1/29/04

to

In article <40181C4D...@comcast.net>,
Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>

>While I'm at it, another thing I am against...is allowing too
>many foreign students into the US to go to university.

Before you state this one again, attend some seminars. You'll
find that American young are not learning about hard core
sciences, math, engineering; these are the areas where
the future jobs come from.

Like you, American kids are now expecting pots of money for no
productive work.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 8:22:06 AM1/29/04

to

In article <slrnc1g21l....@citadel.metropolis.local>,

sta...@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:27:55 GMT, Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>>
>>With the income in China and India...a PDA seems pretty out
>>of reach. Unless you want to skip eating for a few months.
>
>Depends who, and where, in those countries. I believe China is the
fastest
>growing market for such things.
>

The Chinese also know how to share and what is important for
infrastructure.

Rupert Pigott

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 9:46:24 AM1/29/04

to

"J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bv8f9...@enews4.newsguy.com...

[SNIP]

> Minor nit--captains of industry don't need to wank--they can afford hot
and
> cold running hookers or buy themselves a trophy.

That may be true, but they're still wankers. :)

Cheers,
Rupert

Rupert Pigott

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 9:56:04 AM1/29/04

to

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:2085.523T2...@kltpzyxm.invalid...

[SNIP]

> I don't follow your reasoning. Why should expanding into a larger
> market loosen the wankers' stranglehold on the old one? The purpose

I used the word "might", although it's more of a hope. :)

There are a lot of pressures on people at the moment that are
reducing their buying power. Should the market continue to
degrade (and there is evidence to support this) a point will
be reached where profit goes negative. There are lots of
pressures, long and short term. The rapid growth of debt for
example, property price collapse (could happen), the strong
trends that require increasing spending on medical care
(thereby reducing money to spend on consumer goods). We live
in interesting times. It's weird looking at the UKP-USD
exchange rate and remembering that the last time I saw that
was when Maggie Thatcher was in power. :)

Cheers,
Rupert

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 1:29:17 PM1/29/04

to

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:44:52 +0100, Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>
>I don't know why US citizens get so upset about all this. If it
>weren't for its dependence on imported oil then the US could easily be
>self-sufficient.

Hmm, I wonder. In 1990 ths USAs imports of manufactured goods exceeded
it's exports by over 50%.

Morten Reistad

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 1:01:02 PM1/29/04

to

In article <nhoh10tlda1r01pet...@4ax.com>,
Giles Todd <g...@todd.nu> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:29:10 +0100, Morten Reistad
><firs...@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Reserve Board is jealously guarding their independence,
>> and wouldn't fall for any such thing. They had a lot of problems with
>> how to handle the 2000 bubble; and whether to puncture it or not.
>> Instead of a puncture they tried a slow squeeze;
>

>Really? I thought the Fed kept its hands off until the bubble burst.
>After his initial 'irrational exuberance' faux pas in 1996, all
>Greenspan would talk about was how hard it was to detect an asset
>bubble (as he actually did in the speech where the phrase 'irrational
>exuberance' occurred).

They increased the interest rates slowly as the bubble neared it's
top. Not a puncture, but a slow squeeze.

>> but it still unraveled
>> a lot faster than anyone would have liked. The liquidity trap still
>> happened, and then they reduced rates to 60-year lows.
>

>When did the liquidity trap occur, in your view? What were the
>symptoms?

It is correct we only saw the initial indicators. Stockmarket crash,
bond market implosion (pretty close to a crash there as well), severe
contractions in lending and credits, nosediving confidence figures from
industry. Only consumers and real estate carried the day. We saw a
surge in bad credits, but the worst was avoided by falling interest
rates.

>> The effects of what is called Seniority probably carries the day
>> for the US now. This is the effect of having the currency that
>> everyone else [1] use as a reference, and where a dominant part
>> of the world trade takes place. This adds a lot of liquidity to
>> the US dollar market. The US can also issue currency that the rest
>> of the world in practice treat as an interest-free (or low-interest)
>> loan to the US.
>

>The US has indeed been privileged for a long while to be free of
>exchange rate risk on its debt.

>
>> [1] China has changed to using the Euro as their preferred
>> external reserve and settlement currency.
>

>Do you have a reference for this?

I may have misremembered this; but ISTR annoucements this summer
where they were pretty clear about settling in euros. I cannot
find solid references while googling though, only interviews about
staying with euros and lots of technical integration news.
(google terms 'china euro reserve' bring them right up; the
links themselves are so monstrously long i'll let google handle it).

China has a policy of the Euro as a strong second reserve currency
it seems. They make some solid statements about sticking with their
euro positions though.

>> The US dollar now has realistic competition for the first time since
>> 1944. The Euro is big enouigh to take on such functions.
>

>Depending on how seriously the members of the Eurozone take it.

To have a chance to compete as a seniority currency you need a minimum
backing that no single country outside the US can muster. The
previous seniority currencies were Pounds Sterling based on the
British Empire; and Spanish gold-based currency. Before these you have
to go back to Roman times, and Roman gold-based currencies.

After WW2 Britain was bankrupt and couldn't defend a seniority
currency any longer; and noone except the US were even thinkable
as a replacement.

Now there is, at least in theory, an alternative.

>
>> Otherwise, if the dollar rate is readjusted to a level of 2 to the
>> Euro I would call that a Devaluation, not a revaluation.
>

>A devaluation can only work one way. A revaluation can work both
>ways.

>
>> If the US currenct were to take such a nosedive I gather a lot of
>> trade and settlement would move to the Euro.
>

>As is already happening with commodities such as oil, only by stealth
>(the oil price has been clinging to the dollar denominated OPEC
>ceiling for quite a while now, and while commodity prices have been
>increasing in dollar terms, they have been remarkably stable in terms
>of other currencies). Explicit redonomination could be construed as
>offensive by the US government, and no-one but the suicidal wants to
>piss off the US government nowadays.

It will probably not happen overnight. But you will see some exchanges
start to list commodities in euros. If they are actually inside the EU
noone can really blame them. If this is a thing the world wants these
exchanges will get a lot of volume. Not overnight, but you'll
see a slow creep.

-- mrr

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 4:23:42 PM1/29/04

to

Roughly 1/29/04 13:01, Brian {Hamilton Kelly}'s monkeys randomly typed:

> In article <v06h10hgfpo67nh88...@4ax.com>
> g...@todd.nu "Giles Todd" writes:
>
>> I don't know why US citizens get so upset about all this. If it
>> weren't for its dependence on imported oil then the US could easily be
>> self-sufficient. Sort the latter problem out and then the USA could
>> shut its borders, stop imports and exports (whether of goods or
>> services), shut down the Department of State, leave the UN and tell it
>> to move its headquarters, close down its embassies, and then everyone
>> inside and outside the USA could get on with their own lives without
>> continual interference and whingeing from either side.
>
> Sounds like "The Monroe Doctrine".

I thought the Monroe Doctrine was to get a boob job, dye your
hair blonde, wear slinky dresses, and sing "Happy Birthday"
to the Pwesident while drunk outta your mind.

--
Now that Spirit Rover has confirmed the presence of weapons of
mass destruction on Mars, we are preparing to invade...

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:09:49 PM1/29/04

to

(jmfb...@aol.com) writes:
>
...

> Like you, American kids are now expecting pots of money for no
> productive work.

In North America, these are known by the initials CEOs.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 4:53:45 PM1/29/04

to

Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:36:59 +0100
> Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>
> GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will be perfect
> GT> in the USA.
>
> But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region of
> 20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million barrels a
> day. By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days, just long enough
> for Sherazade to finish her tales.
>
> The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.

Of course if our government hadn't caved to the lunatic-fringe econuts
("don't want no damned atoms around here", "the only physics I ever took
was Ex-Lax") and the courts had had the good sense to tell them to cry to
their mommies then US oil, coal, and other fossil-fuel consumption would be
a fraction of what it is.

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:27:41 PM1/29/04

to

"L0nD0t.$t0we11" ("L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net) writes:
>
> I thought the Monroe Doctrine was to get a boob job, dye your
> hair blonde, wear slinky dresses, and sing "Happy Birthday"
> to the Pwesident while drunk outta your mind.

Nope, that was the Monroe Attraction. The Monroe Doctrine was
along the lines of You can't piss in our sandbox, in fact, you
can't even piss _near_ our sand box, so piss off.

TCS

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 5:44:33 PM1/29/04

to

Right. The econuts have real political power in the U.S. The oil industry
couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the death of nuclear power
research and use.

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 6:02:05 PM1/29/04

to

In article <bvc0bd$isp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) writes:

Only once they get to the top. Until then, they're MBAs.

Harvey's a CPA, he worked for IBM.
He went to MIT and got his Ph.D.

-- Allan Sherman

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 8:51:07 PM1/29/04

to

The Chinese sure *do* know how to share!!! I saw a segment
on Sixty Minutes II the other night...about how the Chinese
are making pirated copies of all sorts of US products. The
show actually concentrated on Callaway golf equipment, for
which the Chinese were rushing to make cheap knock-offs and
using the Callaway name on them.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 8:54:56 PM1/29/04

to

jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <40181C4D...@comcast.net>,
> Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >While I'm at it, another thing I am against...is allowing too
> >many foreign students into the US to go to university.
>
> Before you state this one again, attend some seminars. You'll
> find that American young are not learning about hard core
> sciences, math, engineering; these are the areas where
> the future jobs come from.
>

You attend some economical seminars. The "American young"
can *not* afford a college education today, by and large.
I agree that renewed interest in engineering and the sciences
needs to be sparked...a *real* effort to go to Mars might
do just that.

>
> Like you, American kids are now expecting pots of money for no
> productive work.
>

*No*, *not* like me. I have worked for the money I made.
I have *not*, however, saved every rusty nail that I came
across.

If kids expect something for nothing, it is the fault of
the parents...IMHO.

CBFalconer

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 9:52:00 PM1/29/04

to

"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

> > Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
> >
> > GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will

> > GT> be perfect in the USA.

> >
> > But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region
> > of 20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million
> > barrels a day. By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days,
> > just long enough for Sherazade to finish her tales.
> >
> > The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.
>
> Of course if our government hadn't caved to the lunatic-fringe
> econuts ("don't want no damned atoms around here", "the only
> physics I ever took was Ex-Lax") and the courts had had the good
> sense to tell them to cry to their mommies then US oil, coal, and
> other fossil-fuel consumption would be a fraction of what it is.

Or, if the so-called government had had the good sense to insist
on proper CAFE limits, and discouraged guzzlemobiles such as
SUV's, encouraged solar heating (remember tax breaks under Carter,
and Reagans removal of solar heaters from the White House), net
consumption would have been much lower over the past quarter
century, the balance of payments would be improved, and Cheney and
Bush would probably be poorer. We could have shut down more
fission reactors earlier, and greatly reduced the fission products
lying about. Find yourself a chart of the nuclides sometime, and
examine the products of Uranium fission.

However the ostrich like behaviour of the so called conservatives
(which they are not, since they do not conserve) have blocked most
of this. Now they also want to exterminate Caribou and Polar
Bears in the ANWR in the cause of more and smoggier pollution. Of
course the correct answer is to invade oil producing countries,
and ensure regimes with the proper respect for wastage and the
correct oil barons are installed.

More roads. Less rail. Spend. Destroy. Corrode. Expend.

--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

Floyd Davidson

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:01:26 PM1/29/04

to

CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Or, if the so-called government had had the good sense to insist
>on proper CAFE limits, and discouraged guzzlemobiles such as
>SUV's, encouraged solar heating (remember tax breaks under Carter,
>and Reagans removal of solar heaters from the White House), net
>consumption would have been much lower over the past quarter
>century, the balance of payments would be improved, and Cheney and
>Bush would probably be poorer. We could have shut down more
>fission reactors earlier, and greatly reduced the fission products
>lying about. Find yourself a chart of the nuclides sometime, and
>examine the products of Uranium fission.
>
>However the ostrich like behaviour of the so called conservatives
>(which they are not, since they do not conserve) have blocked most
>of this. Now they also want to exterminate Caribou and Polar
>Bears in the ANWR in the cause of more and smoggier pollution. Of
>course the correct answer is to invade oil producing countries,
>and ensure regimes with the proper respect for wastage and the
>correct oil barons are installed.
>
>More roads. Less rail. Spend. Destroy. Corrode. Expend.

That is one of the best short summations of the problem that
I've ever seen.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com

Brian Inglis

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:26:30 PM1/29/04

to

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:06:44 +0100 in alt.folklore.computers, Steve
O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:36:59 +0100
>Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>
>GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will be perfect
>GT> in the USA.
>
> But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region of
>20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million barrels a day.
>By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days, just long enough for
>Sherazade to finish her tales.
>
> The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.

The big question is how much of those reserves are economically
recoverable? Tertiary recovery isn't economic except when you have big
pools and oil prices are high. Cost seems to be about US$20-45M and
depends on local availability of water and CO2 for injection.

--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:28:32 PM1/29/04

to

TCS wrote:

It was not research that was lacking. It was the long, long licensing
delays due to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit driving the costs of
construction through the roof that killed it.

Review the history if you don't believe me. The oil industry could give a
shit--they have plenty of customers more profitable than the US.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 29, 2004, 10:34:37 PM1/29/04

to

CBFalconer wrote:

> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>> > Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>> >
>> > GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will
>> > GT> be perfect in the USA.
>> >
>> > But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region
>> > of 20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million
>> > barrels a day. By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days,
>> > just long enough for Sherazade to finish her tales.
>> >
>> > The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.
>>
>> Of course if our government hadn't caved to the lunatic-fringe
>> econuts ("don't want no damned atoms around here", "the only
>> physics I ever took was Ex-Lax") and the courts had had the good
>> sense to tell them to cry to their mommies then US oil, coal, and
>> other fossil-fuel consumption would be a fraction of what it is.
>
> Or, if the so-called government had had the good sense to insist
> on proper CAFE limits,

So rather than being set where they are, where would you have set them?

> and discouraged guzzlemobiles such as
> SUV's,

So how would you go about this without also banning commercial trucks? Or
would you ban commercial trucks? Or would you just tax them through the
roof?

> encouraged solar heating (remember tax breaks under Carter,
> and Reagans removal of solar heaters from the White House),

Yeah, and I also know that everybody I know who installed solar to get the
tax break has since removed it because it wasn't saving enough to be worth
the hassle. Now, how much of the White House heating load did those
heaters actually provide?

> net
> consumption would have been much lower over the past quarter
> century,

How much lower?

> the balance of payments would be improved, and Cheney and
> Bush would probably be poorer. We could have shut down more
> fission reactors earlier, and greatly reduced the fission products
> lying about. Find yourself a chart of the nuclides sometime, and
> examine the products of Uranium fission.

Why? If you have some point to make then make it instead of making some
vague suggestion to look up some chart.

> However the ostrich like behaviour of the so called conservatives
> (which they are not, since they do not conserve)

"conservative" != "conservationist"

> have blocked most
> of this. Now they also want to exterminate Caribou and Polar
> Bears in the ANWR in the cause of more and smoggier pollution. Of
> course the correct answer is to invade oil producing countries,
> and ensure regimes with the proper respect for wastage and the
> correct oil barons are installed.
>
> More roads. Less rail. Spend. Destroy. Corrode. Expend.

Fine, propose an alternative. Not just solar rah rah or small cars rah rah,
but a plan that will get from here to there without inducing the body
politic to remove the planners from office en masse.

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 5:00:17 AM1/30/04

to

Charles Richmond (rich...@comcast.net) writes:

> You attend some economical seminars. The "American young"
> can *not* afford a college education today, by and large.
> I agree that renewed interest in engineering and the sciences
> needs to be sparked...a *real* effort to go to Mars might
> do just that.

...
Now that I'm in my mid-50's, I have a bit of perspective on that,
(demand for boffins), which was unintentionally absorbed over the
years.

ISTR that there was a near infinite demand for the sliderule set
in the 1950's and 60's, especially in the USA and western
Europe. Cold War, and its side effect NASA, had unlimited budgets
for military and one-upmanship space toys. Remember the saying
that jet fighters are obsolete by the time the drawings are done?

Almost suddenly, aeronautical engineers started driving cabs and
retail shoe sales was the new rocket science. There was even a
movie made about this, and I'll be damned if I can recall the title.

Moral: everything moves in cycles. Whether I'll see the day when
Sir Billy is running a B&B [1], Visual Basic is the name of a
museum, and the computing world is dominated by PL/I and APL is
in doubt - "but I can dream, can't I".

[1] Recent news item states the Gates' neighbourhood is being
bought up by Sir Bill, presumably to keep the rabble of mere
millionaires at bay. Apparently, select M$ serfs fill the
houses - I wonder what the rent is?

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 9:07:41 AM1/30/04

to

In article <bvc0bd$isp$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) wrote:
> (jmfb...@aol.com) writes:
>>
>....

>> Like you, American kids are now expecting pots of money for no
>> productive work.
>
> In North America, these are known by the initials CEOs.

Nope. I remember one guy who loudly insisted that he be
paid JMF's salary plus $20K. Two months later I pulled
every last one of his published patches to BACKUP, one
of which would report that backups had been completed
but weren't done at all. This was in the very early 80s
so we were already breeding them.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 9:11:17 AM1/30/04

to

In article <-4mdnVlevJ5...@comcast.com>,

It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
It was their incessant court cases that did that.

> ..The oil industry

>couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the death of nuclear power
>research and use.

Nope. Not this one.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 9:15:57 AM1/30/04

to

In article <4019C421...@yahoo.com>,

CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" wrote:
>> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>> > Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>> >
>> > GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will
>> > GT> be perfect in the USA.
>> >
>> > But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region
>> > of 20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million
>> > barrels a day. By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days,
>> > just long enough for Sherazade to finish her tales.
>> >
>> > The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.
>>
>> Of course if our government hadn't caved to the lunatic-fringe
>> econuts ("don't want no damned atoms around here", "the only
>> physics I ever took was Ex-Lax") and the courts had had the good
>> sense to tell them to cry to their mommies then US oil, coal, and
>> other fossil-fuel consumption would be a fraction of what it is.
>
>Or, if the so-called government had had the good sense to insist
>on proper CAFE limits, and discouraged guzzlemobiles such as
>SUV's, encouraged solar heating (remember tax breaks under Carter,
>and Reagans removal of solar heaters from the White House),

But you are assuming that this technology works well; it doesn't.

> ..net

>consumption would have been much lower over the past quarter
>century, the balance of payments would be improved, and Cheney and
>Bush would probably be poorer. We could have shut down more
>fission reactors earlier, and greatly reduced the fission products
>lying about. Find yourself a chart of the nuclides sometime, and
>examine the products of Uranium fission.

Find yourself some numbers about the amount of medical waste.

>
>However the ostrich like behaviour of the so called conservatives
>(which they are not, since they do not conserve) have blocked most
>of this. Now they also want to exterminate Caribou and Polar
>Bears in the ANWR in the cause of more and smoggier pollution. Of
>course the correct answer is to invade oil producing countries,
>and ensure regimes with the proper respect for wastage and the
>correct oil barons are installed.
>
>More roads. Less rail. Spend. Destroy. Corrode. Expend.

You keep bitching about all these problems being the fault of
two men who have been in power for three years. These problems
existed before them. In your zeal to prove them to be bad men
you are using illogical arguments.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 9:18:01 AM1/30/04

to

In article <joij10hsd2sp0ujnm...@4ax.com>,

Brian Inglis <Brian....@SystematicSw.Invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:06:44 +0100 in alt.folklore.computers, Steve
>O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:36:59 +0100
>>Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>>
>>GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will be perfect
>>GT> in the USA.
>>
>> But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region of
>>20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million barrels a
day.
>>By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days, just long enough for
>>Sherazade to finish her tales.
>>
>> The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.
>
>The big question is how much of those reserves are economically
>recoverable? Tertiary recovery isn't economic except when you have big
>pools and oil prices are high. Cost seems to be about US$20-45M and
>depends on local availability of water and CO2 for injection.
>

There is also a lot of natural gas pumps which aren't pumping because
the oil is cheaper.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 9:20:30 AM1/30/04

to

In article <4019D35F...@comcast.net>,

Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <slrnc1g21l....@citadel.metropolis.local>,
>> sta...@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) wrote:
>> >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:27:55 GMT, Charles Richmond
<rich...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>With the income in China and India...a PDA seems pretty out
>> >>of reach. Unless you want to skip eating for a few months.
>> >
>> >Depends who, and where, in those countries. I believe China is the
>> fastest
>> >growing market for such things.
>> >
>> The Chinese also know how to share and what is important for
>> infrastructure.
>>
>The Chinese sure *do* know how to share!!! I saw a segment
>on Sixty Minutes II the other night...about how the Chinese
>are making pirated copies of all sorts of US products. The
>show actually concentrated on Callaway golf equipment, for
>which the Chinese were rushing to make cheap knock-offs and
>using the Callaway name on them.

When I said share, I was talking about infrastructure, not
consumerism. For instance, when we visited (~20 years ago)
the goal was to have one telephone installed/village. People
shared the phone.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 12:20:13 PM1/30/04

to

jmfb...@aol.com writes:
> Before you state this one again, attend some seminars. You'll
> find that American young are not learning about hard core
> sciences, math, engineering; these are the areas where
> the future jobs come from.
>

> Like you, American kids are now expecting pots of money for no
> productive work.

early 90s there were two articles, one out of the (us) census,
something about 50 percent of (us) 18 year olds were functionally
illiterate ... the other (possibly appeared in the SJMN) about 50
percent of the technical Phd graduates (at least in cal. schools) were
foreign. some recruiting at colleges in the very early 90s ... all of
the students with technical 4yr degrees with 4.0 gpa were foreign.

basically the hi-tech boom/bubble wouldn't have had the large
explosion of high tech workers w/o all the people from foreign
countries. the hi-tech boom/bubble requirements coupled with the y2k
remediation effort requirements exceeded resources available in the US
... and a large amount of the y2k remediation was outsourced overseas
(wasn't as much a cost issue ... as the resources just weren't
otherwise available).

the problem was that with the completion of most of the y2k
remediation work and the bursting of the hi-tech bubble ... there was
significant reduction in resource requirements ... but at the same
time the overseas outsourcing business relationship (forged in large
part because of the y2k remediation requirements) didn't just
evaporate. note that y2k remediation typically didn't involve any of
the glamor stuff in the hi-tech bubble ... it did involve a lot of
legacy stuff that is the nuts & bolts of many business operations.

once overseas outsourcing demonstrated expertise/skill in the boring
effort of supporting the nuts & bolts of legacy business operation (as
part of y2k remediation) ... it was wasn't likely those resources were
going to be totally discarded/ignored.

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm

William

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 12:38:19 PM1/30/04

to

"Steve O'Hara-Smith" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20040129200644....@eircom.net...

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:36:59 +0100
> Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote:
>
> GT> Close the borders, stop importing oil, and everything will be perfect
> GT> in the USA.
>
> But for how long ? The USA proven oil reserves are in the region of
> 20,000 million barrels and the US consumes around 20 million barrels a
day.
> By my poor arithmetic that makes a thousand days, just long enough for
> Sherazade to finish her tales.
>
> The USA *must* import oil to keep going the way it is.

Sort of. Just under half the consumption is from the domestic proven
reserves
which, by your figuring, implies we'd run them down in a bit over 2000 days,
but that didn't happen even though the proven reserves were probably lower
2000 days ago.

It's not a static number; every year it's about the same because new
reserves
are proven as old ones are depeleted. (Yeah, eventually there won't be any
more, but that has nothing to do with this number.)

What makes us dependant on imported oil in the short term isn't the level
of the proven reserves, but the amount we could produce. (If imported oil
stopped arriving, we could get by - we'd have to divert resources to
increasing production while draining down the strategic reserves; not a good
thing, but not impossible.) -Wm

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 1:22:39 AM1/30/04

to

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:44:33 -0600
TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

T> Right. The econuts have real political power in the U.S. The oil
T> industry couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the death of
T> nuclear power research and use.

Who gives a shit where the blame lies - there's a problem that
needs fixing.

Steve O'Hara-Smith

unread,

Very definately cars, although they sound like trucks when they idle.

Cheers,
Rupert

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 30, 2004, 11:18:19 PM1/30/04

to

Charles Richmond wrote:

> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
>> It was their incessant court cases that did that.
>>
> It's called a "redress of grievances", and it is guaranteed
> by the US consitution.

No, it's called "abuse of the legal system". They did not sue and get
construction blocked by winning suits. They sued and by repetitively
filing suit delayed construction until the interest on the construction
loans that could not be paid off until the plant went into service was in
danger of driving the utilities into bankruptcy.

>
> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

--

Rupert Pigott

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:51:46 AM1/31/04

to

"Giles Todd" <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> wrote in message

news:el7m10tg6643esc7k...@4ax.com...

> I stand corrected, and I apologize to all the kit-car makers in the UK
> as well.

Well TVR are quite unusual. They build their own engines
for a start off, which Austin-Rover wasn't able to do for
some time. They also manage to put some flair into the
styling and interior (love or loath it), which is absent
in Austin Rover offerings.

Looking at the pricing, it looks very hard for Jaguar to
justify their price tags. I'm sure Jag will claim that
they are more reliable, but their track record gives the
lie to that. On the other hand they might say we are now
reliable because we just churn out Fords... In which case
charge Ford prices... :)

> Mrs Thatcher was speaking at a time (I believe that I mentioned the
> 1980s in my original post, quoted above) when there was still a
> remnant of an indigenous and locally-owned automobile industry in the
> UK, sufficient to make a noticeable impact both on UK's GDP and its
> balance of payments.
>
> At the time of writing, these conditions no longer apply.
>
> OK?

Pfft. Boring git.

Cheers,
Rupert

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 3:04:23 AM1/31/04

to

"Charlie Gibbs" (cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes:
> In article <bvd9vh$pu2$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) writes:
>
>> [1] Recent news item states the Gates' neighbourhood is being
>> bought up by Sir Bill, presumably to keep the rabble of mere
>> millionaires at bay. Apparently, select M$ serfs fill the
>> houses - I wonder what the rent is?
>
> An oath of allegiance?

Dammit, I live (again) in a former company town, and I didn't
think of that angle when I posted.

About 1950, INCO built Lively just west of Sudbury/Copper Cliff,
and a short walk south of Creighton Mine. If you worked at INCO
you could rent these places for a song. Blue or white collar,
every employee had a chance for these well-constructed[2] houses.
INCO got out of the real estate business in 1972. Some renters
bought their homes, (after 18 years, my parents didn't want to
move their stuff), and others moved into these new-fangled
things called "apartments" which were stacked up to 10 stories!

[2] The house I'm in now, (across the street from my folks' place)
has a dry basement. So I've dedicated a room down there
for my two XTs, AT and two 486s. One day I'll have them all
networked. B-) The 6800 Heathkit will still be off the 'net -
don't want any nasty virus when there's only 4K ram, right?

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 3:55:19 AM1/31/04

to

"Rupert Pigott" (r...@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk) writes:
>
...

> Looking at the pricing, it looks very hard for Jaguar to
> justify their price tags.

...
Not at all, at least for those models which have the spiffy
new _glued_ aluminum frame. I just read that the BMW 5-series
is infected with this for the front-to-A-pillar too.

In the snowy parts of the world, the vehicle can expect to be
driven in a brine solution and spray for six months of the year.
Aluminum and salt. Hmmm. (Memories of dad's Skoda beater from
the mid 60's: lots of Al, lots of corrosion.)

The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.

Charles Richmond

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 6:58:18 AM1/31/04

to

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> > jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >>
> >> It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
> >> It was their incessant court cases that did that.
> >>
> > It's called a "redress of grievances", and it is guaranteed
> > by the US consitution.
>
> No, it's called "abuse of the legal system". They did not sue and get
> construction blocked by winning suits. They sued and by repetitively
> filing suit delayed construction until the interest on the construction
> loans that could not be paid off until the plant went into service was in
> danger of driving the utilities into bankruptcy.
>

Hey, the current legal system is *all* we've got right now.
I am sure that the companies in question make good use of
the legal system also. It may *not* seem fair, but it is
the "only game in town". This "redress of grievances" is
the only way provided to try to get yourself heard.

So what other system would you prefer...a dictator like
Sadam Housain???

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 7:11:43 AM1/31/04

to

In article <WZKdnY61taM...@giganews.com>,

There is also the <ahem>minor matter of physical delivery of oil.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 8:24:24 AM1/31/04

to

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:

> "Rupert Pigott" (r...@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk) writes:
>>
> ...
>> Looking at the pricing, it looks very hard for Jaguar to
>> justify their price tags.
> ...
> Not at all, at least for those models which have the spiffy
> new _glued_ aluminum frame. I just read that the BMW 5-series
> is infected with this for the front-to-A-pillar too.
>
> In the snowy parts of the world, the vehicle can expect to be
> driven in a brine solution and spray for six months of the year.
> Aluminum and salt. Hmmm. (Memories of dad's Skoda beater from
> the mid 60's: lots of Al, lots of corrosion.)

As opposed to "lots of steel, lots of rust".

> The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
> glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.

You might be surprised--bonded structures have been in development for a
very long time and have a considerable track record in aerospace in some
pretty severe environments.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 8:21:06 AM1/31/04

to

Charles Richmond wrote:

> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> > jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>> >>
>> >> It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
>> >> It was their incessant court cases that did that.
>> >>
>> > It's called a "redress of grievances", and it is guaranteed
>> > by the US consitution.
>>
>> No, it's called "abuse of the legal system". They did not sue and get
>> construction blocked by winning suits. They sued and by repetitively
>> filing suit delayed construction until the interest on the construction
>> loans that could not be paid off until the plant went into service was in
>> danger of driving the utilities into bankruptcy.
>>
> Hey, the current legal system is *all* we've got right now.
> I am sure that the companies in question make good use of
> the legal system also.

How? They only way they could "make good use of the legal system" would
have been to countersue to recover the losses, and since the parties suign
them had no assets to speak of that was a waste of time.

> It may *not* seem fair, but it is
> the "only game in town". This "redress of grievances" is
> the only way provided to try to get yourself heard.

I'm sorry, but filing a lawsuit against a public utility is not "petitioning
for redress of grievances". There were petitions filed as well--they were
never able to get enough signatures to induce anybody with any authority to
give a damn.

> So what other system would you prefer...a dictator like
> Sadam Housain???

One in which someone who files a suit that is not upheld and that damages
the defendant must suffer at least as much as the defendant.

However, it is clear that you are not rational on the topic of politics when
you suggest that the only alternative to the current US legal system, which
exists primarily as a jobs program for lawyers, is a third-world
dictatorship. Very honestly--that reasoning is at an intellectual level
worthy of Archie Bunker.

> --
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

--

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 8:33:08 AM1/31/04

to

In article <bvgal...@enews3.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>>
>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>> > jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>> >>
>>> >> It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
>>> >> It was their incessant court cases that did that.
>>> >>
>>> > It's called a "redress of grievances", and it is guaranteed
>>> > by the US consitution.
>>>
>>> No, it's called "abuse of the legal system". They did not sue and get
>>> construction blocked by winning suits. They sued and by repetitively
>>> filing suit delayed construction until the interest on the construction
>>> loans that could not be paid off until the plant went into service was
in
>>> danger of driving the utilities into bankruptcy.
>>>
>> Hey, the current legal system is *all* we've got right now.
>> I am sure that the companies in question make good use of
>> the legal system also.
>
>How? They only way they could "make good use of the legal system" would
>have been to countersue to recover the losses, and since the parties suign
>them had no assets to speak of that was a waste of time.

I often wondered if it wouldn't have been worth it to do
that the first time. These idiots were more than willing to
spend money other than their own. Attaching a lien on their
houses might have given them a shot of capitalist reality.

>
>> It may *not* seem fair, but it is
>> the "only game in town". This "redress of grievances" is
>> the only way provided to try to get yourself heard.
>
>I'm sorry, but filing a lawsuit against a public utility is not
"petitioning
>for redress of grievances". There were petitions filed as well--they were
>never able to get enough signatures to induce anybody with any authority
to
>give a damn.

I would like to mention the laws that had been approved by the
electorate on a general ballot but were overturned because
somebody brought a lawsuit. Rent control is slowly creeping
its way back into the system. Term limits no longer exist.

>
>> So what other system would you prefer...a dictator like
>> Sadam Housain???
>
>One in which someone who files a suit that is not upheld and that damages
>the defendant must suffer at least as much as the defendant.

I've been hearing promises of tort reform for years now.
I can't think of a way it'll ever happen.

>
>However, it is clear that you are not rational on
>the topic of politics when
>you suggest that the only alternative to the
>current US legal system, which
>exists primarily as a jobs program for lawyers, is a third-world
>dictatorship. Very honestly--that reasoning is at an intellectual level
>worthy of Archie Bunker.

His hidden agenda is to unionize. Although why he's insisting
on having another orthogonal set of PHBs tell him what to do,
including piss, is beyond me.

jmfb...@aol.com

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 8:34:29 AM1/31/04

to

In article <401ADA7C...@comcast.net>,

Charles Richmond <rich...@comcast.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> It wasn't their political power that bankrupted our power industry.
>> It was their incessant court cases that did that.
>>
>It's called a "redress of grievances",

What grievances?

> .. and it is guaranteed by the US consitution.

Please state the article where product prevention is a
constitutional right.

CBFalconer

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 12:08:01 PM1/31/04

to

jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
... snip ...

> >
> > How? They only way they could "make good use of the legal
> > system" would have been to countersue to recover the losses,
> > and since the parties suign them had no assets to speak of
> > that was a waste of time.
>
> I often wondered if it wouldn't have been worth it to do
> that the first time. These idiots were more than willing to
> spend money other than their own. Attaching a lien on their
> houses might have given them a shot of capitalist reality.

So, if a (for example) Tyson wants to open a hog farm in your back
yard, and dispose of the slop in a pool that can be smelled for
miles, they should be perfectly free to do this without any legal
barriers? Nobody has mentioned any specific suits, but the
differences are almost certainly ones of degree and immediacy.

Or do you expect the "government" to step in and protect the
environment, which includes yours. If so, you might read the
papers and watch the news (which our esteemed leader considers
beneath him, so that he can receive only properly biased
information from Cheney, Rumford [1], and other stalwart defenders
of freedom and proponents of the Gitmo concentration camp).

To misquote a noted Republican (deceased):

"Distortion in the cause of bigotry and warfare is no excess"

[1] Noting that GWB has driven out any remotely sane cabinet
members, such as Whitman and Reid. Powell cannot last much
longer.

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:21:51 PM1/31/04

to

On 31 Jan 2004 08:55:19 GMT, Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

<ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> In the snowy parts of the world, the vehicle can expect to be
> driven in a brine solution and spray for six months of the year.
> Aluminum and salt. Hmmm.

Depends on the aluminum used. I know people who use aluminum boats in
sea-water. (The Royal Navy for one.)

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)

The future was never like this!

Keith R. Williams

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:33:54 PM1/31/04

to

In article <401BE14D...@yahoo.com>, cbfal...@yahoo.com
says...

> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> ... snip ...
> > >
> > > How? They only way they could "make good use of the legal
> > > system" would have been to countersue to recover the losses,
> > > and since the parties suign them had no assets to speak of
> > > that was a waste of time.
> >
> > I often wondered if it wouldn't have been worth it to do
> > that the first time. These idiots were more than willing to
> > spend money other than their own. Attaching a lien on their
> > houses might have given them a shot of capitalist reality.
>
> So, if a (for example) Tyson wants to open a hog farm in your back
> yard, and dispose of the slop in a pool that can be smelled for
> miles, they should be perfectly free to do this without any legal
> barriers? Nobody has mentioned any specific suits, but the
> differences are almost certainly ones of degree and immediacy.
>
> Or do you expect the "government" to step in and protect the
> environment, which includes yours. If so, you might read the
> papers and watch the news (which our esteemed leader considers
> beneath him, so that he can receive only properly biased
> information from Cheney, Rumford [1], and other stalwart defenders
> of freedom and proponents of the Gitmo concentration camp).

Rumford?

Why would GW read the trash that's called "news" in this country.
He's making the news, the "news" establishment is simply whining
(as are you).

BTW, what would you propose instead of the Gitmo camp? That they
should have been summarily executed (a real possibility at the
time)? Given a free pass to the US legal system? Please!

> To misquote a noted Republican (deceased):
>
> "Distortion in the cause of bigotry and warfare is no excess"
>
> [1] Noting that GWB has driven out any remotely sane cabinet
> members, such as Whitman and Reid. Powell cannot last much
> longer.

Reid? You only call the ones who have a disagreement with the
President "remotely sane". Your politics is obvious: hate.

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:33:52 PM1/31/04

to

In article <bvgal...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
jcl...@nospam.invalid says...

> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
> > "Rupert Pigott" (r...@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk) writes:
> >>
> > ...
> >> Looking at the pricing, it looks very hard for Jaguar to
> >> justify their price tags.
> > ...
> > Not at all, at least for those models which have the spiffy
> > new _glued_ aluminum frame. I just read that the BMW 5-series
> > is infected with this for the front-to-A-pillar too.
> >
> > In the snowy parts of the world, the vehicle can expect to be
> > driven in a brine solution and spray for six months of the year.
> > Aluminum and salt. Hmmm. (Memories of dad's Skoda beater from
> > the mid 60's: lots of Al, lots of corrosion.)
>
> As opposed to "lots of steel, lots of rust".

That's why they invented galvanized steel. Later cars seem to do
fairly well against brine. There was a time (late '70s, early
'80s) where a car wouldn't last more than four years before
turning to a red pile. Not so any longer.

>
> > The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
> > glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.
>
> You might be surprised--bonded structures have been in development for a
> very long time and have a considerable track record in aerospace in some
> pretty severe environments.

Dunked in salt water for six months at a time isn't one of them.
I think I'll pass on glued frames.

--
Keith

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:35:13 PM1/31/04

to

CBFalconer wrote:

> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
> ... snip ...
>> >
>> > How? They only way they could "make good use of the legal
>> > system" would have been to countersue to recover the losses,
>> > and since the parties suign them had no assets to speak of
>> > that was a waste of time.
>>
>> I often wondered if it wouldn't have been worth it to do
>> that the first time. These idiots were more than willing to
>> spend money other than their own. Attaching a lien on their
>> houses might have given them a shot of capitalist reality.
>
> So, if a (for example) Tyson wants to open a hog farm in your back
> yard, and dispose of the slop in a pool that can be smelled for
> miles, they should be perfectly free to do this without any legal
> barriers? Nobody has mentioned any specific suits, but the
> differences are almost certainly ones of degree and immediacy.

Again you make a false dichotomy. There are plenty of legal barriers. The
choice is not lawsuits or nothing.

> Or do you expect the "government" to step in and protect the
> environment, which includes yours.

So how is forcing the abandonment of a relatively environmentally friendly
(despite all the whining of the eco-ignorami) "protecting the environment"?

> If so, you might read the
> papers and watch the news (which our esteemed leader considers
> beneath him, so that he can receive only properly biased
> information from Cheney, Rumford [1], and other stalwart defenders
> of freedom and proponents of the Gitmo concentration camp).

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that naval base at Guantanemo Bay is somehow
causing environmental pollution in the continental US? If not, then what
point exactly are you trying to make?

Personally I think you need to take a chill pill and wipe the spittle off.

> To misquote a noted Republican (deceased):
>
> "Distortion in the cause of bigotry and warfare is no excess"
>
> [1] Noting that GWB has driven out any remotely sane cabinet
> members, such as Whitman and Reid. Powell cannot last much
> longer.

What does anybody with the initials "GWB" have to do with anything?

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 1:38:06 PM1/31/04

to

jmfb...@aol.com wrote:

Get a bucket (you'll need it) and then google "redress of grievances"--that
seems to be the latest buzzword of the nutcake conspiracy theorists--you
know, the ones who want to violate the Constitution by charging half of
Congress with treason for alleged violations of the Constitution?

> /BAH
>
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

--

Stan Barr

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 3:13:42 PM1/31/04

to

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:24:24 -0500, J. Clarke <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
>
>> The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
>> glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.
>
>You might be surprised--bonded structures have been in development for a
>very long time and have a considerable track record in aerospace in some
>pretty severe environments.

They glue many major parts of Airbus together, I've not heard of any
joint failures yet.

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 4:04:02 PM1/31/04

to

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 5:35:02 PM1/31/04

to

"Keith R. Williams" wrote:
> cbfal...@yahoo.com says...
>
... snip ...

>
> Why would GW read the trash that's called "news" in this country.
> He's making the news, the "news" establishment is simply whining
> (as are you).

Even Fox, that ultra-liberal establishment, is losing faith in
your boy these days.

>
> BTW, what would you propose instead of the Gitmo camp? That they
> should have been summarily executed (a real possibility at the
> time)? Given a free pass to the US legal system? Please!

"Free pass", yes. In the Anglo-Saxon world arbitrary
imprisonment, execution, etc. have been anathema to various
degrees since Magna Carta. If the 'enemies of the state' can be
proven to not be citizens nor legal immigrants then there is
always the option of expulsion. Quis custodes custodiet. The
whole attitude is remarkably similar to that of the original
constitution, where blacks were worth 1/3 a person (or something
like that).

>
> > To misquote a noted Republican (deceased):
> >
> > "Distortion in the cause of bigotry and warfare is no excess"
> >
> > [1] Noting that GWB has driven out any remotely sane cabinet
> > members, such as Whitman and Reid. Powell cannot last much
> > longer.
>
> Reid? You only call the ones who have a disagreement with the
> President "remotely sane". Your politics is obvious: hate.

Not hate. Disgust is much more accurate. Swearing loyalty to der
Fuhrer became passe 60 odd years ago.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 5:40:51 PM1/31/04

to

Rupert Pigott wrote:

Why? Saddam fought a war and lost. Are you saying that the actions of
terrorists should be dignified by treating them as honest soldiers who had
the misfortune to be captured?

> Cheers,
> Rupert

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 5:38:06 PM1/31/04

to

Keith R. Williams wrote:

Actuall, in the marine industry it is.

> I think I'll pass on glued frames.

Then don't fly anywhere.

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 5:43:04 PM1/31/04

to

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:

> Stan Barr (sta...@dial.pipex.com) writes:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:24:24 -0500, J. Clarke <jcl...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
>>>> glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.
>>>
>>>You might be surprised--bonded structures have been in development for a
>>>very long time and have a considerable track record in aerospace in some
>>>pretty severe environments.
>>
>> They glue many major parts of Airbus together, I've not heard of any
>> joint failures yet.
>
> It's been years since I set up finite element models, and I don't
> have NASTRAN, etc. running at home, ( B-), so I can't decide
> whether the following is relevant to the Airbus vs. Jag picture.
>
> An automotive magazine was discussing Italian sports cars, probably
> the Alfa Romeo Spyder (Mrs. Robinson), and made the comment that
> their suspensions were finely honed like aircraft gear - but air-
> craft only use them on takeoff and landing.

However they use the wings, control surfaces, engines, and so on the whole
time they are flying. And most cars don't get slammed onto the ground like
an airplane that a Navy pilot is trying to make sure stays stuck to the
boat.

>
> B-)
>
> Except the shuttle. (I wonder if NASA gets a discount or extended
> warranty on shuttle tires because they're only used during the
> lightly loaded landing part of the mission?)

--

Rupert Pigott

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 8:07:47 PM1/31/04

to

"J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bvhc1...@enews2.newsguy.com...

> Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> > "Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a85bac4...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >> BTW, what would you propose instead of the Gitmo camp? That they
> >> should have been summarily executed (a real possibility at the
> >> time)? Given a free pass to the US legal system? Please!
> >
> > There are plenty of precedents, both good and bad. Quite
> > deliberately denying PoW status to them and yet granting
> > it to Saddam takes the piss quite frankly.
>
> Why? Saddam fought a war and lost. Are you saying that the actions of

Was war formally declared ? I don't think it was, IIRC the same
applies to Afghanistan. Perhaps I missed the formal declaration ?

> terrorists should be dignified by treating them as honest soldiers who had
> the misfortune to be captured?

I do indeed. In case you missed it Afghanistan was the first
offensive in the "War on Terror". If you wnat to start splitting
hairs, fine, but the fact remains they aren't necessarily
terrorists by the admissions of their captors. Specifically :
they are interrogating them to *determine* if they are 'terrorists'
and what kind of stuff they know.

By all accounts at least some of them were in fact part of a
national army who were captured after pitched battles, not even
Guerillas. Clearly I am a hand-wringing liberal as I would classify
the Boer families interned in concentration camps by the British
as PoWs, although I do understand that my classification runs
contrary to the goals and declarations of the occupier. There have
been no reports of cholera that I'm aware of in that Cuban
enclosure, so that's one plus point for Guantanamo Bay over the
Concentration Camps established by the British Empire in South
Africa.

I doubt that we'll ever achieve a meeting of minds on this issue
and I know that there are plenty of folks on both sides. What
bothers me most is that I can't recall anyone outside of the
Cabinet or US Administration formally endorsing that particular
operation. I figure that the House of Lords might be a good place
to start hunting for such a critter, given their bias towards law
and the "Tony Cronie" factor. By contrast I can find plenty who
have formally stated that they feel that the status and treatment
accorded to those captives is wrong. There are precedents for
this kind of mismatch with respect to Northern Ireland as well,
so it's not a new thing by any means.

Cheers,
Rupert

Heinz W. Wiggeshoff

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 10:48:44 PM1/31/04

to

"J. Clarke" (jcl...@nospam.invalid) writes:
...

> And most cars don't get slammed onto the ground like
> an airplane that a Navy pilot is trying to make sure stays stuck to the
> boat.

Come to The Greater City of Sudbury anytime between today and
July to experience car slamming. (Bring pilot's certificate. B-)

J. Clarke

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 10:13:02 PM1/31/04

to

Rupert Pigott wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bvhc1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Rupert Pigott wrote:
>>
>> > "Keith R. Williams" <k...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1a85bac4...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> > [SNIP]
>> >
>> >> BTW, what would you propose instead of the Gitmo camp? That they
>> >> should have been summarily executed (a real possibility at the
>> >> time)? Given a free pass to the US legal system? Please!
>> >
>> > There are plenty of precedents, both good and bad. Quite
>> > deliberately denying PoW status to them and yet granting
>> > it to Saddam takes the piss quite frankly.
>>
>> Why? Saddam fought a war and lost. Are you saying that the actions of
>
> Was war formally declared ? I don't think it was, IIRC the same
> applies to Afghanistan. Perhaps I missed the formal declaration ?

Are you saying that what happened in Iraq was not a "war"? Then what was
it?

>> terrorists should be dignified by treating them as honest soldiers who
>> had the misfortune to be captured?
>
> I do indeed. In case you missed it Afghanistan was the first
> offensive in the "War on Terror". If you wnat to start splitting
> hairs, fine, but the fact remains they aren't necessarily
> terrorists by the admissions of their captors. Specifically :
> they are interrogating them to *determine* if they are 'terrorists'
> and what kind of stuff they know.

So? Are any of the people who are being held at Guantanemo people who were
serving in the armed forces of the recognized government of Afghanistan?

> By all accounts at least some of them were in fact part of a
> national army who were captured after pitched battles,

Which accounts? Was this "national army" the army of a recognized
government?

> not even
> Guerillas. Clearly I am a hand-wringing liberal as I would classify
> the Boer families interned in concentration camps by the British
> as PoWs, although I do understand that my classification runs
> contrary to the goals and declarations of the occupier. There have
> been no reports of cholera that I'm aware of in that Cuban
> enclosure, so that's one plus point for Guantanamo Bay over the
> Concentration Camps established by the British Empire in South
> Africa.
>
> I doubt that we'll ever achieve a meeting of minds on this issue
> and I know that there are plenty of folks on both sides. What
> bothers me most is that I can't recall anyone outside of the
> Cabinet or US Administration formally endorsing that particular
> operation. I figure that the House of Lords might be a good place
> to start hunting for such a critter, given their bias towards law
> and the "Tony Cronie" factor. By contrast I can find plenty who
> have formally stated that they feel that the status and treatment
> accorded to those captives is wrong. There are precedents for
> this kind of mismatch with respect to Northern Ireland as well,
> so it's not a new thing by any means.
>
> Cheers,
> Rupert

--

Keith R. Williams

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 10:56:29 PM1/31/04

to

In article <bvhc1...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
jcl...@nospam.invalid says...

ANd there is no sacrificial anode? Even fiberglass boats use a
sacrificial anode. I haven't seen a practical one of these for
cars.

> > I think I'll pass on glued frames.
>
> Then don't fly anywhere.

The skins are glued, not frames. ...and I was discussing cars
that go splashing though brine for six months at a time, not
airframes that are babied.

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 10:54:18 PM1/31/04

to

In article <bvh5hc$ecc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, ab528
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...

How many years was it on the road during winter?

--
Keith

Keith R. Williams

unread,

Jan 31, 2004, 10:58:19 PM1/31/04

to

In article <bvhc1...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
jcl...@nospam.invalid says...

> Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
>
> > Stan Barr (sta...@dial.pipex.com) writes:
> >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:24:24 -0500, J. Clarke <jcl...@nospam.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>>Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The price may also reflect the possible legal bills when the
> >>>> glue lets go and the Jags revert to pure driveway ornaments.
> >>>
> >>>You might be surprised--bonded structures have been in development for a
> >>>very long time and have a considerable track record in aerospace in some
> >>>pretty severe environments.
> >>
> >> They glue many major parts of Airbus together, I've not heard of any
> >> joint failures yet.
> >
> > It's been years since I set up finite element models, and I don't
> > have NASTRAN, etc. running at home, ( B-), so I can't decide
> > whether the following is relevant to the Airbus vs. Jag picture.
> >
> > An automotive magazine was discussing Italian sports cars, probably
> > the Alfa Romeo Spyder (Mrs. Robinson), and made the comment that
> > their suspensions were finely honed like aircraft gear - but air-
> > craft only use them on takeoff and landing.
>
> However they use the wings, control surfaces, engines, and so on the whole
> time they are flying. And most cars don't get slammed onto the ground like
> an airplane that a Navy pilot is trying to make sure stays stuck to the
> boat.

Are you saying that a F14's gear are glued on? Do the flyboys
know this?

--
Keith