Now here's a cool car
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Operation Distance Chart: It Doesn't Suck, It's 'Art'!
Next: Hamilton (OH) rolls out area's first 'speed van'
From: Bob Willard on 9 Apr 2010 07:35 Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > dgk wrote: >> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >> goal? > > Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will > come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It > always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant > interference entity. It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn, greatly pushed by gov't funding. Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward. And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to universities, can lead to real technological progress. Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights to insanity or inanity. {Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.} -- Cheers, Bob
From: N8N on 9 Apr 2010 14:12 On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: > dgk wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" <gorta...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> <gl4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>news:gl4317-0504102327440001(a)69-30-9-110.pxd.easystreet.com... > >>> In article <68-dnfYeC5TuMyfWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)giganews.com>, Grumpy > >>> AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: > > >>>> gl4...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>> In article <hpbj1e$m3...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Stewart" > >>>>> <gorta...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Left wing socialist alert! > > >>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own? > > >>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read > >>> misc.transport.rail.americas. > >>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is > >>>>> posted). > > >>>> What??? > > >>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs??? > > >>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer > >>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology > >>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the > >>> Soviet > >>> Diesel Computer Cooperative. > > >>> -- > >>> -Glennl > >>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail > >>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess. > >> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to > >> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation...... > > > Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want > > to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad > > goal? > > Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will > come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It > always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant > interference entity. > > > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity > > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. > > Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until > new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their" > backyard. Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I turned out just fine. nate
From: Grumpy AuContraire on 11 Apr 2010 11:25 Bob Willard wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> dgk wrote: >>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>> goal? >> >> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will >> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. >> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant >> interference entity. > > It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While > most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the > private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or > indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and > computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let > me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on > computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn, > greatly pushed by gov't funding. Really??? Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs. Seems to me that the IC came out of Texas Instruments. > Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in > the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused > on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding > the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward. > And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to > universities, can lead to real technological progress. Yes, I'll agree to this and in fact it is my point. Guv'ment has become to great provider of corporate welfare and it is more important to analyze why this became so. > Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that > is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the > private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is > also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights > to insanity or inanity. Well, if you look at California, there's a perfect example on guv'ment running amuck. > {Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my > four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was > dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.} Ah... OK, you were/are a beneficiary! JT
From: Grumpy AuContraire on 11 Apr 2010 11:31 N8N wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> > wrote: >> dgk wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" <gorta...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> <gl4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:gl4317-0504102327440001(a)69-30-9-110.pxd.easystreet.com... >>>>> In article <68-dnfYeC5TuMyfWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...(a)giganews.com>, Grumpy >>>>> AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: >>>>>> gl4...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> In article <hpbj1e$m3...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Stewart" >>>>>>> <gorta...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Left wing socialist alert! >>>>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own? >>>>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read >>>>> misc.transport.rail.americas. >>>>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is >>>>>>> posted). >>>>>> What??? >>>>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs??? >>>>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer >>>>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology >>>>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the >>>>> Soviet >>>>> Diesel Computer Cooperative. >>>>> -- >>>>> -Glennl >>>>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail >>>>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess. >>>> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to >>>> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation...... >>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>> goal? >> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will >> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It >> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant >> interference entity. >> >>> Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity >>> can be produced by a cleaner method than coal. >> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until >> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their" >> backyard. > > Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I > turned out just fine. > > nate I would never advocate a path that would be unnecessarily risky but a risk that is manageable. Nukes are just that and the only viable interim solution to the nation's energy needs. Continued dependence on foreign oil is folly at best and downright dangerous regarding national security and economically as well. If the private sector had the same freedom of movement regarding innovation that it had forty or fifty years ago, we might well be enjoying a new source of energy that meets the needs of consumers as well as being environmentally friendly. But I'll never see such at this point in time... JT
From: E. Meyer on 11 Apr 2010 14:50
On 4/11/10 10:25 AM, in article jcOdnX2Be9FOdVzWnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: > Bob Willard wrote: >> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>> dgk wrote: >>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want >>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad >>>> goal? >>> >>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will >>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. >>> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant >>> interference entity. >> >> It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While >> most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the >> private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or >> indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and >> computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let >> me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on >> computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn, >> greatly pushed by gov't funding. > > Really??? > > Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs. To be totally correct about it, Bell labs invented the transistor, Geophysical Systems Inc. bought the rights to manufacture it from Bell labs and renamed the company from GSI to Texas Instruments. Now, whether or not Bell labs did the research with Govt. investment is a whole other question. > > Seems to me that the IC came out of Texas Instruments. > True. Jack Kilby has a Nobel prize for it. > >> Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in >> the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused >> on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding >> the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward. >> And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to >> universities, can lead to real technological progress. > > Yes, I'll agree to this and in fact it is my point. Guv'ment has become > to great provider of corporate welfare and it is more important to > analyze why this became so. > > >> Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that >> is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the >> private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is >> also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights >> to insanity or inanity. > > Well, if you look at California, there's a perfect example on guv'ment > running amuck. > > >> {Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my >> four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was >> dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.} > > Ah... OK, you were/are a beneficiary! > > JT |