From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:21:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.154138.13191@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov
(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

|>In article <C0DC5p.3A7@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
mykes@shell.portal.com writes:


|>>They just don't choose YOUR risk, right?  You have my best wishes at
|>future
|>>attempts, but if you can show a bottom line plus figure, you will get
|>some
|>>support.
|>
|>It's a good thing Edison didn't operate that way or we would be sending
|>these
|>messages by carrier pidgeon.

Nope, I'm sure that If Edison hadn't invented the telephone then Bell would have
done it.



|>>You screed against the free market, yet it works.  Men like Henry Ford
|>>take expensive technology and make it economically viable.
|>
|>Henry Ford took risks, made bold plans. Our present corporations are
|>failing to do just that.

And got backed by Edison without which he never would have made it. Ford was one
of Edison's technicians and owed a great deal to Edison's help getting him
started. The free market was not ready to back such a revolutionary idea as
building cars on a chasis using the production line principle for mass
production.


|>>And no matter
|>>how rich/powerful the competition is, the best/cheapest technology wins
|>>every time - especially without government interference.
|>
|>I suppose you wouldn't like to prove this statement.
|>
|>>In spite of no
|>>government intervention, or even antitrust laws and the like, Ford won
|>out
|>>in spite of the CEOs of BuggyWhip corporations.
|>
|>
|>Ford was a visionary. Ford understood the value of risk, the value of
|>innovation, and the value of investment. He supports my point.

Ford was going well into the era of the Anti-trust laws. He suffered a great
deal from the tactics used to form GM. It was because he refused to join the
cartel that he had all the labour disputes.


|>>Your documented facts are not facts.  They are evidence.  There was no
|>Control
|>>experiment to prove NASA's level of responsibility, or that other forces
|>would
|>>have naturally accomplished the same things...
|>
|>I suggest you read the recent history of Bell Labs and Watson labs, our
|>two
|>largest corporate research laboratories. They have cut almost all
|>long-term
|>R&D and have turned their best scientists into glorified marketing slugs.
|>These labs were the pride of corporate America and have been reduced to
|>mere
|>incremental technology development centers. Furthermore, almost all
|>of our corporations have made similar cuts to their long-term R&D efforts.
|>This is a fact and evidence.

Just like the UK did in the 50s and Japan and Germany are doing today. R&D don't
pay, not on the 6 month schedules that most companies run to. 


|>>
|>>: >I'll let the free market prove it.
|>>: 
|>>: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those clowns to develop
|>>: some gumption.
|>>: 
|>>
|>>I won't hold my breath for NASA to make it cheap enough for ME to access
|>>space at will, either.
|>
|>NASA may not but the DC program, funded by SDI and using NASA's
|>NASP technology, will sooner than you think. You are not very knowledgable
|>about the state of the art in aerospace. I suggest you do some reading
|>before you back yourself further in the corner.

SDI is a con, a good excuse to get lots of tax dollars for pork barrel projects,
nothing more. Whatever technology is thrown at SDI can also be thrown at evasion
tactics. SDI would stand almost no chance against even existing technology like
Chevalene.

Don't waste money on an obvious pork barrel with no hope of a spinoff - military
projects have negative spinoff value since they are secret and often obstruct
civilian work. If you want better drugs or whatever invest in basic science or
directly in applications. Spinoffs in the applications end of things tend to be
rare though so if you want a cure for cancer don't put the money in SDI. On the
other hand if you put cash in basic work you may strike lucky and get some
spinoffs.


|>>My only feeling about nuclear power is that it works, but is dangerous.
|>>As long as no crimes are comitted (like radiating people, etc.), then if
|>>the free market wills nuclear power, let them build nuclear power plants.
|>
|>How trusting of you.

I'm quite for the free market in the nuclear field. In the UK the free market
said no to nuyclear power and we discovered that the whole schem was based on a
pack of lies from the very start.



|>>Comment if you like, but on TV just now, a documentary on scientists
|>>studying Mount St. Helens claimed that the blast was the equivalent of
|>>40,000 atomic bombs - more than all the nukes we've ever built as a human
|>>race...

Crap 40,000 Hiroshimas. Modern H-Bombs do in the thousands of Hiroshimas and we
have 45,000 odd of them.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67345 alt.activism:20471