Now here's a cool car

Tony Harding wrote:
> On 04/08/10 22:49, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> dgk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article >, Grumpy
>>>>> AuContraire > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
>>>>>>> > 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.
>
> Speaking of a "Right wing asshole alert!"!
>
> "Always" is one of those fight-starting words. The last 10 years hardly
> suggest that you're right about the private sector.
>
> <not calling you an asshole, BTW, or the other poster>
>
> While discussing gummint, let me axe you a question, Grover Norquist is
> famously quoted as saying he'd like to reduce the federal gummint small
> enough so he can drown it in the bathtub. ... Okay, let's assume he just
> managed to do it, then what?


Start fresh!

JT

In article >,
Tony Harding > wrote:

> On 04/06/10 02:27, wrote:

> > 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.
>
> HUH? Did the SDCC survive the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or thereabouts)?
>
> Did the really have diesel powered computers? That could be cool!


There was a fairly well known political cartoon that appeared sometime
in the very late 1980s, when there was the first joint television speech
by Gorbachev and Reagan. The speach content was shown to be something
along the lines of "Our two countries actually have much in common."

The American is shown watching the broadcast on a high quality Sony TV
with dozens of cable channel selections, and an absolute crystal clear
image. The Soviet citizen is shown watching the broadcast on a "Soviet
Diesel Television Cooperative" product, with a huge knife switch whose
only choices are "On" and "Off", and with terrible picture quality.

The cartoon stuck with me all these years because of the huge gulf
between the two superpowers it demonstrated, even when it came to such
simple things as access to quality technology, thanks to a requirement
in one of them that pretty much all products be of domestic origin, in
order to maintain full employment for the masses.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

On 04/23/10 20:37, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 04/11/10 21:59, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> E. Meyer wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/10 10:25 AM, in article
>>>> , "Grumpy AuContraire"
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> Back a zillion or so years ago, I did a couple of contracts for the
>>> technical support (sub)contractor for the Safeguard R&D program on
>>> Kwajalein. The project management was by Bell Labs and later I learned
>>> that they were told that they had to do this because they were the only
>>> entity that was capable of such a complex program.
>>>
>>> Imagine that... The guv'ment actually telling a business entity that
>>> they had to take a contract! And, it was up to Bell Labs to succeed with
>>> a minimum of interference which certainly is not the case today.
>>>
>>> The plus side is that since AT&T was in charge, benefits were good even
>>> for us lowly subcontractors...
>>
>> Ah, yes, the bad old days.
>
>
> You think that things are better today???

I was joking - in those "bad old days" workers got decent wages,
benefits, some job security, etc. As opposed to the 21st century.

On 04/23/10 20:44, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 04/08/10 22:49, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> dgk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article >, Grumpy
>>>>>> AuContraire > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>
>> Speaking of a "Right wing asshole alert!"!
>>
>> "Always" is one of those fight-starting words. The last 10 years
>> hardly suggest that you're right about the private sector.
>>
>> <not calling you an asshole, BTW, or the other poster>
>>
>> While discussing gummint, let me axe you a question, Grover Norquist
>> is famously quoted as saying he'd like to reduce the federal gummint
>> small enough so he can drown it in the bathtub. ... Okay, let's assume
>> he just managed to do it, then what?
>
>
> Start fresh!

By doing what?

On 04/23/10 13:22, Bolwerk wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 04/14/10 08:37, dgk wrote:
>>> So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
>>> of your NY reactor.
>>
>> Free food for the masses --- looks like win-win to me!
>
> I'm not sure eating out of the Hudson River will ever be advisable.

Wouldn't the radiation sterilize the fish?

On 04/24/10 01:30, Glen Labah wrote:
> In >,
> Tony > wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/10 02:27, wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> HUH? Did the SDCC survive the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or thereabouts)?
>>
>> Did the really have diesel powered computers? That could be cool!
>
>
> There was a fairly well known political cartoon that appeared sometime
> in the very late 1980s, when there was the first joint television speech
> by Gorbachev and Reagan. The speach content was shown to be something
> along the lines of "Our two countries actually have much in common."
>
> The American is shown watching the broadcast on a high quality Sony TV
> with dozens of cable channel selections, and an absolute crystal clear
> image. The Soviet citizen is shown watching the broadcast on a "Soviet
> Diesel Television Cooperative" product, with a huge knife switch whose
> only choices are "On" and "Off", and with terrible picture quality.
>
> The cartoon stuck with me all these years because of the huge gulf
> between the two superpowers it demonstrated, even when it came to such
> simple things as access to quality technology, thanks to a requirement
> in one of them that pretty much all products be of domestic origin, in
> order to maintain full employment for the masses.

Thanks, sounds pretty funny (love to see the cartoon if you know where
to find it). Reminds me of the Wendy ad containing a Russian fashion show.

On 04/23/10 20:33, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 04/05/10 23:50, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
>>>> > 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???
>>
>> FEH! Light weight/small carbon footprint bicycles only!
>>
>>
>
> Yep, perfect for all them thar' yankees up in the rust belt in January!

Indeed!

In article >,
Tony Harding > wrote:

> Wouldn't the radiation sterilize the fish?

What radiation?

"dgk" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> In article >, Grumpy
>>> AuContraire > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > In article >, "Stewart"
>>>> > > 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?
>
> Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the
> electricity
> can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.

The vehicles will be here well before coal is replaced for electrical
generation. The difference at first, will be pretty much nil. Also,
try recharging one of those at the cost of electricity in CT.....

On 04/23/10 20:36, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> On 04/11/10 11:25, Grumpy AuContraire 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Exactly what do you mean here? Please don't say it has anything to do
>> with the energy situation & Enron.
>
> What I mean here is simply that guv'ment cannot be all things to all
> people...

Of course.

>> (minor nit: it's "amok" not "amuck", no such work AFAIK)
>
> There is in my "book," as muck is exactly what california finds itself
> stuck in..

You're free to write your own book, of course. Can you describe the
"muck" CA finds itself stuck in & how it got that way?