Now here's a cool car

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?

On 04/09/10 07:35, 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.
>
> 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.}

Cool! And good post!

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.

(minor nit: it's "amok" not "amuck", no such work AFAIK)

On 04/11/10 14:50, 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.

Let's assume not and chalk it up to the private sector. IIRC this was
done circa 1948, we need to focus more recently, not to mention someone
mentioned the pharma companies.

>> Seems to me that the IC came out of Texas Instruments.
>
> True. Jack Kilby has a Nobel prize for it.

Good for Jack!

I'm certain there are many beside me here who can quote massive
mismanagement and waste in the private sector as well. Gummint has no
monopoly on this sort of thing.

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.

On 04/14/10 08:37, dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:52:10 -0500,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > 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?
>>
>> That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
>> constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.
>>
>> If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
>> "deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
>> the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
>> with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.
>>
>>> Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>> can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>>
>> Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
>> supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
>> its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
>> electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
>> possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
>> can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
>> impossible.
>
>
> 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!

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.

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!

JT

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...


> (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..

JT

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???

JT