Livin' in Luxury -- Reliance Electric !
(David P.)
Reliance Electric was founded in 1904
in Cleveland, Ohio, as a partnership
between two cousins: inventor John
Lincoln & industrialist Peter Hitchcock.
Lincoln had been working on a new type
of direct current motor. Direct current
was the primary means of electrification
at the time because alternating current
was considered dangerous & unpredictable.
Lincoln invented the 1st adjustable-speed
direct current motor. They shipped their
first industrial electric motor in 1905.
The two named their new company after the
inventor, Lincoln Electric Motor Works.
In 1907, Lincoln sold his interest in the
company to Charles and Ruben Hitchcock,
Peter's sons. The youngest, Ruben took
over the company. But having little
business or electrical experience, Ruben
sought a new president. He found one in
Clarence Collens, a Yale graduate, who
stayed with the company in that capacity
for the next 40 years. When Collens came
on as pres., the company was incorporated
as Reliance Electric and Engineering Co.
The variable-speed motor was Reliance's
only product until 1913. That year, the
company's chief engineer, Alex McCutcheon,
designed a new DC motor that soon became
Reliance's primary product. It was used
in many of Cleveland's booming steel mills
and was a mainstay of the DC product line
until the early 1950s.
Reliance began to design and manufacture
industrial alternating current motors in
the 1920s, but the company was late to
join the race to convert to AC.
Reliance executives realized that they
needed to find a niche for their company
to remain competitive and profitable.
They decided that the company would
concentrate on becoming a flexible,
timely supplier of industrial motors and
emphasize the applied engineering aspect
of the business. To accomplish this
conversion, the Reliance sales dept was
organized with technically knowledgeable
people. These representatives would not
just sell Reliance products, they would
also investigate customers' needs and
recommend equipment to get the job done.
One of the salesmen, Jim Corey, proved
his technical expertise when he received
a patent for an adjustable-voltage,
multi-motor control system for use in
the paper and textile industries.
Reliance made its first inroads into the
AC business in 1927 with a modification
of the General Electric enclosed
fan-cooled motor.
The company grew quickly on the basis of
these new technologies, & in 1929, on the
eve of the Great Depression, Reliance's
sales peaked at about $3 million. The
Corey motor helped partially insulate
the company from the severe economic
downturn, since the textile industry was
virtually depression-proof. The intro-
duction of the first electrical variable-
speed drive package during the 1930s
established Reliance's enduring leader-
ship in that facet of the business.
During World War II, Reliance served as
a primary supplier of motors to the
military, especially the Navy. The
company also supplied the motors needed
to build hundreds of tanks.
During the 1950s, the company expanded
its electrically based products to
include mechanical power transmission
products through the acquisition of
Reeves Pulley & the Master Electric Co.
Mergers and acquisitions continued in
the 1960s and 1970s. The Mechanical
Group was expanded with the purchase of
the Dodge Manufacturing Company in 1967.
Reliance became the largest industrial
motor manufacturer in the United States
with the 1986 purchase of the Medium AC
Motor Division from one of its oldest
competitors, Westinghouse Electric Co.
In Nov 1994, industry leaders Reliance
and Allen-Bradley joined Rockwell
Automation, becoming the number one
provider of high-performance automation
products in the world.
A new motor plant was opened in Columbus,
Nebraska in 1995. Reliance and Allen-
Bradley drive systems realigned to form
Rockwell Automation Drive Systems.
Reliance employs the newest satellite
technology to train and communicate
with its sales force.
New innovations included:
* VTAC 7 drives for the HVAC industry
* The new line of RPM™ XL DC motors
* Engineered motors with ratings to 25,000 HP.
In 1996, Reliance, American Superconductor
and the U. S. Department of Energy develop
the Superconductivity Partnership Initiative.
[...]
.
.
--
Libby Loo
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:53e146a6-b392-404c...@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.reliance.com/aboutre/aboutre_english.htm
>
> > Reliance Electric was founded in 1904
> > in Cleveland, Ohio, as a partnership
> > between two cousins: inventor John
> > Lincoln & industrialist Peter Hitchcock.
>
> [nothing]
Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
respect for future generations (by stopping the
suppression of influenza, for example), when you
finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
to the rest of history?
.
.
--
Libby Loo
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfe1da3e-90e0-4391...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> I like the way my armpits smell
use more deodorant
(David P.)
Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> (David P.) wrote:
>
> > Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out
> > of respect for future generations (by stopping the
> > suppression of influenza, for example),
> > when you finally realize that we're living in
> > luxury compared to the rest of history?
>
> to use plans for population control (plagues)
> already proved in the field not to work,...
The Black Death, a disease that spread
among the populace like wildfire, killed
as much as a third of the population in
the mid-14th century. In some regions,
the toll was higher than one half of the
population. Towns were especially hard-hit
because of the crowded conditions. Large
areas of land were left sparsely inhabited,
& in some places fields were left unworked.
As a consequence of the sudden decline
in available labourers, the price of wages
rose as landlords sought to entice workers
to their fields. Workers also felt that they
had a right to greater earnings, & popular
uprisings broke out across Europe.
This period of stress, paradoxically,
witnessed creative social, economic,
and technological responses that laid
the groundwork for further great changes
in the Early Modern Period.
.
.
--
Libby Loo
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:e7c4156d-277b-4b6f...@r13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> they examined my head but didn't find anything
have your proctologist take a look-see
David Johnston
No.
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" wrote:
>
> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
> >to the rest of history?
>
> No.
The hell it ain't!
.
.
--
(David P.)
> > of respect for future generations (by stopping the
> > suppression of influenza, for example),
> > when you finally realize that we're living in
> > luxury compared to the rest of history?
>
> People 500 years ago lived in great luxury compared
> to their 10,000 years earlier predecessors.
They didn't have nuclear weapons!
> People 500 years from now will live in a luxury that
> makes the current variety seem like the abject
> poverty it is, flitting from star to star on a whim.
>
> That's just the nature of progress.
>
> xanthian.
>
> The universe is burning out, will be entirely gone
> in a mere 10^100 years.
>
> Somewhere out there are planets made of solid
> precious metals, or solid diamond.
>
> Get your fair share while you can.
.
.
--
Kent Paul Dolan
> In talk.bizarre,
> Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> (David P.) wrote:
>>> Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out
>>> of respect for future generations (by stopping the
>>> suppression of influenza, for example),
>>> when you finally realize that we're living in
>>> luxury compared to the rest of history?
>> Explain to us one more time why you're supposed
>> to use plans for population control (plagues)
>> already proved in the field not to work,...
>
> The Black Death, a disease that spread
> among the populace like wildfire, killed
> as much as a third of the population in
> the mid-14th century. In some regions,
> the toll was higher than one half of the
> population.
So what? When you're seeing six to a dozen live
births per couple, how long does it take to overcome
a 1/3rd population loss? Less than a generation.
Plagues don't work to control population, you've
just put on a band-aid, you haven't solved the real
problem, which is that the population (re)growth is
still exponential.
Freely available conception control plus old age
security separate from being supported only by large
families _does_ solve the problem, the population
growth rate usually ends up going negative.
Full stop.
You're still self-proved to be an obsessed idiot.
xanthian.
David Johnston
Look, you asked and I answered. People are not going to want to
increase their odds of dying early just because their lives are
comfortable.
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> "(David P.)" wrote:
> >>
> >> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
> >> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
> >> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
> >> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
> >> >to the rest of history?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >The hell it ain't!
>
> of dying early just because their lives are comfortable.
Lives are comfortable in the end years? I'm hearing
a lot about people falling and breaking bones, losing
faculties, chronic illnesses, etc. And nobody gives
a damn about sustainability?
.
.
--
(David P.)
> (David P.) wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >> (David P.) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out
> >>> of respect for future generations (by stopping the
> >>> suppression of influenza, for example),
> >>> when you finally realize that we're living in
> >>> luxury compared to the rest of history?
> >>
> >> Explain to us one more time why you're supposed
> >> to use plans for population control (plagues)
> >> already proved in the field not to work,...
> >
> > The Black Death, a disease that spread
> > among the populace like wildfire, killed
> > as much as a third of the population in
> > the mid-14th century. In some regions,
> > the toll was higher than one half of the
> > population.
>
> So what?
This period of stress, paradoxically,
(David P.)
> > of respect for future generations (by stopping the
> > suppression of influenza, for example),
> > when you finally realize that we're living in
> > luxury compared to the rest of history?
>
> to their 10,000 years earlier predecessors.
The difference between 1508 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
(with regard to literacy, communications,
transportation, leisure activities, food preservation,
plumbing, cheap energy supplies, etc.) isn't even
close to the difference between 2008 and 1508.
> People 500 years from now will live in a luxury that
> makes the current variety seem like the abject
> poverty it is, flitting from star to star on a whim.
> That's just the nature of progress.
David Johnston
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> "(David P.)" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
>> >> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
>> >> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
>> >> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
>> >> >to the rest of history?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >The hell it ain't!
>>
>> People are not going to want to increase their odds
>> of dying early just because their lives are comfortable.
>
>Lives are comfortable in the end years?
Not relevant to whether living in luxury compared to the rest of
history makes people want to die young.
(David P.)
Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> (David P.) wrote:
>
> >> People 500 years ago lived in great luxury
> >> compared to their 10,000 years earlier
> >> predecessors.
>
> > They didn't have nuclear weapons!
>
> 500 years ago have to do with them "living in
> luxury" compared to their predecessors?
When you have nuclear weapons, it might be
a good idea to control population!
.
.
--
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> >> "(David P.)" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
> >> >> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
> >> >> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
> >> >> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
> >> >> >to the rest of history?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >The hell it ain't!
> >>
> >> People are not going to want to increase their odds
> >> of dying early just because their lives are comfortable.
> >
> >Lives are comfortable in the end years?
>
> Not relevant to whether living in luxury compared to
> the rest of history makes people want to die young.
The main reason for accepting death control is to show
respect for future generations! And relatively few people
die young from influenza; it's mostly the elderly!
.
.
--
David Johnston
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> >> "(David P.)" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
>> >> >> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
>> >> >> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
>> >> >> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
>> >> >> >to the rest of history?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.
>> >> >
>> >> >The hell it ain't!
>> >>
>> >> People are not going to want to increase their odds
>> >> of dying early just because their lives are comfortable.
>> >
>> >Lives are comfortable in the end years?
>>
>> Not relevant to whether living in luxury compared to
>> the rest of history makes people want to die young.
>
>The main reason for accepting death control is to show
>respect for future generations!
It is not easier to accept a "death control tax" when one realises
that we're living luxury compared to the rest of history. That is the
question you asked. That is the question I answered.
(David P.)
How greedy are you gonna get?
.
.
--
(David P.)
> remaining connection to reality, who thinks _he_
> should be put in charge of who is allowed to live
> and who must die, arrogating a task his faux god
> thought already to have well in hand, himself.
Having fun thrashing that straw man? I never said
I wanted to be in charge of the administration of
influenza to the entire world population, if such a
think is even possible (it isn't).
> Obviously Pollutka doesn't _believe_ in that god,
> or he'd leave things in that god's hands.
God helps those who help themselves!
Didja fergit?
.
.
--
(David P.)
> (David P.) wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> >
> >> People 500 years ago lived in great luxury compared
> >> to their 10,000 years earlier predecessors.
> >
> > The difference between 1508 and
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
> > (with regard to literacy, communications,
> > transportation, leisure activities, food
> > preservation, plumbing, cheap energy supplies,
> > etc.) isn't even close to the difference between
> > 2008 and 1508.
>
> proved repeatedly by his own hand to be insane,
> incompetent, unintelligent, and generally a
> laughingstock, you mean.
> I won't even bother to go point by point through the
> items you listed, I'll just remark that you are
> wrong in every case. Proof is left as an exercise
> for the reader.
Just look at the percentage of population with
obesity! That'll tell you who's livin' in luxury!
.
.
--
David Johnston
The desire to live and to have one's loved ones live for a long time
is not greed. Living in luxury is irrelevant.
(David P.)
>
> a long time is not greed. Living in luxury is irrelevant.
And the consequences for future generations
is irrelevant, too?
.
.
--
(David P.)
> ignorance from you.
http://www.sirc.org/articles/poverty_and_obesity.shtml
Poverty and obesity
Coverage of obesity in the British press
has doubled in the past year & threatens
to become an 'epidemic' in its own right.
It is almost impossible to pick up a daily
or Sunday paper without being exposed to
headlines featuring words such as 'time-
bomb' and ill-founded assertions that
the present generation of children will
die before their parents. The sounds of
wringing hands and admonishments to eat
'properly' have become almost deafening.
In the midst of this 'headless chicken'
panic about growing girths — & especially
the girths of children — govt agencies
appear to have given in to the food-
correctness lobbyists who have sought to
pin the blame for the disaster squarely
on those greedy multinational purveyors
of lard, sugar and salt — the culpable
'fat cats' who have, apparently, single-
handedly created our fat nation. The Food
Standards Agency, for example, has
announced a plan to 'overhaul food
promotion to children' despite the fact
that in its own evidence just 2 months
ago to the Commons Select Health Cmte.
re advertising of food to children it
conceded that:
"The conclusions that the researchers
drew was that the evidence is not there
to draw any conclusions on the magnitude
of the effect."
In what we take to be proper science-
based approaches, if the magnitude of
an effect cannot be measured then it
cannot be said to exist at all. Rational
and evidence-based thinking clearly no
longer stands in the way of appeasing
the growing clamour for action on obesity,
even when there is no evidence that the
proposed measures will have the slightest
impact. The 'let's be seen to be something,
no matter how misguided' philosophy has
long been a familiar response of agencies
that have run out of proper ideas.
Amidst this disoriented casting around
for culprits and simple solutions, driven
hard by media hype, it was refreshing to
read in the Observer a thoughtful article
by David Smith that for once dealt with
some of the real issues underlying the
rise in obesity — poverty & disadvantage.
It has become fashionable to believe that
in the modern Blairite Britain such
features of British society are no longer
with us — that we are all now 'middle
class' & that the old social & economic
distinctions that were once an intrinsic
feature of our culture have been consigned
to history. Not so, sadly, for the people
of Glasgow's East End where life expectancy
is around 60 and falling and where the
average diet is about as unhealthy as it
can get. Obesity is but one of the symptoms
of the impoverishment that plagues their
lives.
For those directly concerned with stemming
the declining health of this population the
middle-class food and health philosophies
generated in Westminster seem almost
obscenely irrelevant. A local GP, Dr Gerry
Spence, for example, comments:
"A lot of people are on benefits, living
from week to week, relying on convenience
foods and eating out of the chippy. Give
people jobs and the ability to be masters
of their own destinies and they will make
healthy decisions about their lives. You
bring employment into here and I guarantee
the pubs will empty, the kids will stay at
school and the place will flourish. You
can't blame the people when they are
victims of circumstances. It's not really
a medical problem, it's something for the
politicians to sort out. I hope the drop
in life expectancy is a turning point and
the politicians are called to account.
They should hang their heads in shame."
Bob Holman, who quit academia to work on
projects in socially deprived areas, is
similarly unimpressed with current
initiatives to combat obesity.
"This is not rocket science. Poor health
is a well-known feature of deprivation.
Mothers are not daft and they do know fat
and crisps are bad for children but they
can't afford the alternative. The Govt
has to give them the means. Initiatives
are not going to change anything unless
you've got the cash in your pocket. If
you buy a salad at Sainsbury's, it's
still very expensive."
The Observer article is, unfortunately,
a rarity. Most journalists and editors
seem to prefer to crank up the attacks
on soft targets — the unlovable McDonald's
or Coca Cola — rather than expose the
dirt that has been swept under the carpet
of many parts of urban Britain. The data
show quite clearly that lower income
families and those living in socially
deprived neighbourhoods are far more at
risk from becoming obese than the middle
and upper classes. A report from the
National Statistics office notes:
"Obesity is linked to social class, being
more common among those in the routine or
semi-routine occupational groups than the
managerial and professional groups. The
link is stronger among women. In 2001,
30% of women in routine occupations were
classified as obese compared with 16% in
higher managerial & professional occupations."
Researchers at the Dept of Social Medicine
at Bristol Univ have also concluded that:
". social origins may have a long term
impact on obesity. Whether this operates
thru the early establishment of behavioral
patterns, such as diet and exercise, or
through metabolic changes associated with
early deprivation, is still to be determined."
While the exact nature of the causal effect
might not be clear from the Bristol
study, it's evident that relative deprivation
affects not only levels of childhood obesity
but, perhaps even more so, obesity in later
adulthood.
Unlike the alleged effect of food advertising,
the impact of social inequalities on levels
of obesity can be measured, and it is very
substantial — the largest single factor that
has so far been identified. Despite this, it
receives scant attention in the media. The
graph below demonstrates dramatically how
little we seem to care about this issue.
The data that are illustrated in the graph
are derived from SIRC's analysis of 12,902
British national and major regional newspaper
articles that focused, to some degree at
least, on obesity since 1998. We can see
clearly that as the frequency of such
articles has risen progressively over this
period of time, so too has coverage of the
issue of advertising and promoting food to
children and calls for stricter controls.
Read just a sample of such articles and
you will find that the coverage has been
driven by a small group of 'food extremists'
in the guise of the Food Commission, Sustain,
etc.
The bottom line of the graph shows the number
of articles in which attention was paid to
issues of poverty, low-income families,
social deprivation, etc. The graph speaks
for itself. The real roots of obesity, that
are conveniently hidden away from the
chattering classes who wield dispropor-
tionate influence when it comes to developing
'popular' solutions to societal problems,
are not things that the media wish us to
read about. And because they are rarely
headline news, government departments and
agencies seem to have little cause to pay
them much heed — especially when they are
uncomfortable reminders that New Labour has
not yet quite delivered the New Britain.
.
.
--
David Johnston
Of course. By and large retired people are not the ones who have the
most environmental impact.
(David P.)
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> "(David P.)"
> >>
> >> >How greedy are you gonna get?
> >>
> >> The desire to live &have one's loved ones live for
> >> a long time is not greed. Living in luxury is irrelevant.
> >
> >And the consequences for future generations
> >is irrelevant, too?
>
> the most environmental impact.
Many live in cities, so others have to sprawl further
out, and have to drive everywhere! Retirees have to
heat/cool their homes just like everyone else! And
they do their driving during the day instead of rush hour!
By and large, you're full of shit!
.
.
--
(David P.)
>
> This period of stress, paradoxically,
> witnessed creative social, economic,
> and technological responses that laid
> the groundwork for further great changes
> in the Early Modern Period.
Two Years Before the Mast; A Personal
Narrative of Life at Sea.
by Dana, Richard Henry, jr.
Bookseller: J. N. Bartfield Fine Books, ABAA
(New York, NY, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating: 3-star rating
Price: $15000.00
Book Description: New York: Harper & Bros,
1840. 8vo. Original tan muslin (Harper's
Family Library), stamped in black on covers
and spine. Small remnants of an old label
at top of spine, some light typical foxing
inside and out; a sound and well preserved
copy of this fragile binding with no
restoration, very good. First Edition.
Dana had to withdraw from Harvard when
measles weakened his eyesight; in order
to regain his health, he shipped to pre-
Gold Rush California as a sailor in 1834.
His book has become a classic account of
the life and adventures of an ordinary
seaman in the American merchant service,
as well as a most trustworthy account of
California cattle country before 1849.
He later became U.S. attorney for the
district of Mass. and was nominated to
the Court of Saint James as minister.
BAL 4434. Grolier American 100: 46.
Bookseller Inventory # 14522
.
.
--
(David P.)
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:42:50 -0800 (PST), "(David P.)"
>
>
>
> <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> >> "(David P.)" wrote:
>
> >> >> >Isn't it easier to accept a death control tax, out of
> >> >> >respect for future generations (by stopping the
> >> >> >suppression of influenza, for example), when you
> >> >> >finally realize that we're living in luxury compared
> >> >> >to the rest of history?
>
> >> >> No.
>
> >> >The hell it ain't!
>
> >> People are not going to want to increase their odds
> >> of dying early just because their lives are comfortable.
>
> >a lot about people falling and breaking bones, losing
> >faculties, chronic illnesses, etc. And nobody gives
> >a damn about sustainability?
>
> rest of history makes people want to die young.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sustainability+goals%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Results 1-10 of about 130,000 for "sustainability goals".
.
.
--
David Johnston
(David P.)
> >>
> >> >Lives are comfortable in the end years? I'm hearing
> >> >a lot about people falling and breaking bones, losing
> >> >faculties, chronic illnesses, etc. And nobody gives
> >> >a damn about sustainability?
> >>
> >> Not relevant to whether living in luxury compared to the
> >> rest of history makes people want to die young.
> >
>
> >Results 1-10 of about 130,000 for "sustainability goals".
>
> No.
.
--
(David P.)
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The desire to live &have one's loved ones live for
> > >> a long time is not greed. Living in luxury is irrelevant.
> > >
> > >And the consequences for future generations
> > >is irrelevant, too?
> >
> > By and large retired people are not the ones who have
> > the most environmental impact.
>
> Many live in cities, so others have to sprawl further
> out, and have to drive everywhere! Retirees have to
> heat/cool their homes just like everyone else! And
> they do their driving during the day instead of rush hour!
And they are counting on their pensions and Social Security!
What is the environmental impact of those working to allow
those monies to keep flowing?
.
.
--
(David P.)
And another important reason is that it's more equitable
for everyone to be on the front lines, rather than having
just the young soldiers paying the price!
.
.
--
(David P.)
Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> (David P.) wrote:
> > Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>
> >> People 500 years ago lived in great luxury compared
> >> to their 10,000 years earlier predecessors.
>
> > The difference between 1508 and
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
> > (with regard to literacy, communications,
> > transportation, leisure activities, food
> > preservation, plumbing, cheap energy supplies,
> > etc.) isn't even close to the difference between
> > 2008 and 1508.
>
> years ago, 500 years ago, written material, and its
> readership, was widespread. That's a binary change,
> nothing since can equal it.
500 years ago, mostly the Bible, and a few how-to manuals.
Today, infinitely greater.
> Communications: limited to persons nearby 10,500
> years ago, spanned oceans 500 years ago, was in
> principle capable of being worldwide, and with the
> spice trade to China, probably was. Nothing since
> improves spectacularly on "world-wide". Yes, we
> can now communicate between earth and the edge of
> the solar system, but that has little impact on the
> "luxury" level of the ordinary person.
Time factor is all-important. Instant electronic
communication vs. days/weeks/months/years.
> Food preservation: Arguably there wasn't much,
> 10,500 years ago, so our ancestors were in constant
> quest for food year around. 4000 years ago we had
> dried and salted food, and wine in amphorae, all of
> which last for generations at least. Nothing today
> lasts usefully longer, and most methods use much
> more energy and material resources to preserve the
> food.
Number of modern choices is incredibly greater,
and energy & material resources are plentiful,
but overpopulation still causes warfare.
> Leisure activities: 10,500 years ago cave paintings
> and bead and bone art were just as satisfying _to the
> participant_ as are slobbing in front of a TV set or
> pushing video game controller buttons today.
> The big change-over point for leisure activities
> came with the introduction of better implements from
> the time, say, of the Egyptians and forward, when
> paint brushes and stone chisels made realistic
> depictions possible, when chariot racing, camel
> racing, and horse racing were possible because
> livestock had been domesticated, when paper had
> been invented & playing cards were possible, etc.
Much greater variety today, millions of playing fields,
pro athletes roam the globe, televised events, fantasy
leagues, billion-dollar collectibles biz, electronic
gambling, hundreds of kinds of dancing, art, music,
sport, etc.etc.
> Plumbing: There _was_ no man-made plumbing 10,500
> years ago. By the time of the Romans, both clean
> water plumbing and enclosed sewage systems were in
> place.
> Nothing we have today improves on that in kind or in
> importance, only in detail.
Romans collapsed like a curmudgeon-esque geezer,
who thinks braggablowharding is a kind of exercize.
Indoor plumbing didn't appear until late 19th century,
not widespread until after WWI.
> Cheap energy supplies: 10,500 years ago, ...
>
> 500 years ago, ...
>
> Today's "cheap energy", ...
Plentiful is the key word. Today, electricity
is nearly everywhere, doing the work, that's
why there's so much obesity, nobody has
to do anything.
> As noted, you are wrong in every case.
Yeah, right.
http://www.lepg.org/sixteen.htm
The sixteenth century in Europe was
a time of unprecedented change. It
was the beginning of the modern era,
and it saw a revolution in almost
every aspect of life. The century
opened with the discovery of a new
continent. The renaissance in Italy
as peaking and spreading north, even
arriving in backwaters like England.
Life was largely prosperous for the
average person, the economy was growing.
The mechanisms of commerce, systems of
international finance, ocean-going
trading fleets, an entrepreneurial
bourgeoisie, were all building a
recognizably capitalist, money-based
economy. Geniuses were stepping all
over each other on the street corners
producing scientific innovation after
innovation. Technological innovations
like gunpowder were changing the nature
of warfare and the military caste nature
of society -- the cannon probably had
a great deal to do with the rise of
the centralized nation state as we
know it. The printing press created
a media revolution. It brought ideas,
partisan rhetoric, and how-to manuals
to the people. Most of all, it brought
the Bible, in its original tongues and
in the vernacular, to the masses. A
spirit of inquiry, a desire to return
to first principles, was blowing thru
the Church, which had been the unifying
cultural foundation of Europe for a
millenium.
The first half of the century saw what
contemporaries viewed as the most earth-
shattering change in the century: the
Reformation. The cultural consensus of
Europe based on universal participation
in the Body of Christ was broken, never
to be restored. Along with the Refor-
mation came challenges to secular society.
The nature and organization of power and
government came under reevaluation as
well. No one could imagine religious
change without it going hand-in-hand
with social and political change, as
indeed it did.
There were other things fueling the
furnaces of change. The economy was a
prosperous one at the beginning of the
century, with even the average peasant
able to afford a bit of meat in the
stew pot. People were optimistic about
the future, they were having larger
families and the population was growing.
The combination of population pressure
and inflation exacerbated by the flow
of gold and silver from the New World
saw a price rise that cut effective
wages in half by about mid-century.
Changing economic conditions saw many
peasants lose their land as the terms
of their tenancy become much less
favorable, while land was becoming
concentrated in the hands of the elites,
especially the rising bourgeousie.
Homelessness and vagrancy were on the
rise, and towns experienced a sense of
crisis trying to deal with the poor.
By the end of the century, a peasant
almost never saw meat, and many of them
had reached such a state of despair
about the future that they engaged in
widespread revolts. Tensions between
the social orders were high on many
levels.
Although the peasants & more marginal
classes of people were struggling, the
middle class was growing and generally
becoming more powerful. In a port city
like Calais, located on the north
Atlantic with an active maritime trade
with the English, Dutch, and other
French ports, the quality of material
life saw an overall improvement. People
in towns had leisure time to spend in
taverns, gaming, and drinking -- hard
liquor as an escape from a hard life
began to be a social problem during
this time.
In France, the 1st half of the century
saw the reign of François Ier, who
brought the art and culture of the
Italian Renaissance to France and
encouraged the new humanistic learning.
His contemporaries were Henry VIII of
England and the Holy Roman Emperor
Charles V, whose Hapsburg territories
stretched from Hungary to Spain. All
were destined to leave their mark on
the times and all were rivals. The
Hapsburgs in particular represented
a constant threat to France, as their
territories, Flanders in the north,
the Imperial duchies and bishoprics
in the east, and Spain in the south,
almost completely surrounded its land
borders.
In the second half of the century,
the dynastic struggles continued and
the characters of many of the emerging
nations of Europe were formed. Henry
VIII of England was eventually succeeded
by Elizabeth, perhaps England's greatest
monarch. Her age was one of genius,
exploration, and growing national pride.
Charles V divided his empired between
his son Philip II, who received Spain
and the Netherlands, and his brother
Ferdinand, who received the eastern
territories (Austria/Hungary) and the
imperial title. Philip II was the most
powerful monarch of the age, controlling
an empire that stretched completely
around the world. The mind-boggling
riches of the New World were his, and
for the most part they were spent making
war to enforce Catholicism in the Nether-
lands and elsewhere. By the end of the
century, Spain had declared bankruptcy
twice.
The untimely death of François Ier's
son, Henri II, in 1559, saw the social
and political consensus in France
dissolve under the forces of the
Reformation, dynastic rivalry, and
economic pressure. The second half of
the century was consumed with the Wars
of Religion, which were as much a
political and civil conflict as a
religious one. The young sons of
Catherine de' Medici came successively
to the throne, and the last of them,
Henri III, was assassinated in 1589.
The first of the Bourbon dynasty,
Henri IV, acceded to the throne, but
as a Protestant his claim was hotly
contested. Throughout the '90's he has
been fighting the forces of the Catholic
League, backed by Spain, to win control
of the country. He converted to
Catholicism in 1593, finally entered
Paris in 1594. Internal League opposition
began to wind down in the mid-90s, but as
of 1596 Spain is actively at war with
France and in the spring captured Calais,
where we live.
The 1590s have been difficult years for
the common people everywhere in Europe.
The weather has been cold and wet for
three years and there have been at least
three bad harvests in a row. The League
warfare has destroyed transportation
and food supplies. Bread is scarce and
prices of food, fuel, and housing are
high, while wages are low. The costs of
war and the huge national debt have
meant that taxes are also high. There
have been peasant uprisings in some
provinces, sometimes with Huguenots and
Catholics alike uniting against the
nobility. The effects of war have been
so severe in Northern France that two-
thirds of the population of Picardy are
widows and orphans. The Spanish are
still pressing hard agains the northern
border and these are bleak times, but
Henri's leadership offers France some
hope for the future.
==================
==================
8th millennium BC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the 8th millennium BC, agriculture
becomes widely practiced in the Fertile
Crescent and Anatolia.
Pottery becomes widespread (with
independent development in Cent America)
and animal husbandry (pastoralism)
spreads to Africa and Eurasia. World
population is approximately 5 million.
.
.
--
(David P.)
> people 500 years ago did or did not live more in
> luxury than people 10,500 years ago? _Neither_
> group had nuclear weapons, nutball.
Everything has to do with everything else! Reality
includes everything! That's the big picture!
.
.
--
(David P.)
> > of respect for future generations (by stopping the
> > suppression of influenza, for example), when you
> > compared to the rest of history?
>
> What kind of logic is that: "I'm well off, therefore
> I should start trying to cause the deaths of my
> contemporaries"?
There's no possible precedent that can be applied
to today's situation! We've never had a 6.7 billion
world population before!
Rohan Hawthorne
> God helps those who help themselves!
> Didja fergit?
Here is a picture of my shed.
Rohan.