a bit of politics and history?

[Mohoender]

In order to prevent too much political talks on game talks. I propose to start a post on that subject. Just in case, but if you find it insane don't hesitate and say it;) . I don't have anything against political talk and history talk (I love it). However, before moving here, many were saying that politics was not the point and I think they are still right.

[kato13]

This board is very good at moderating itself. The only times we have ever come close to going over the edge in in threads related to politics. We have always pulled ourselves back thankfully. Surprisingly religion does not seem to be a sore spot as far as I know.

As long as everyone keeps things civil there should be no problem. I just want everyone to know that a moderator (me) practically lives on this board now. so think twice if your passions might be running away with you. It would take quite a bit for me to pull the moderation trigger, but be aware I will do it if necessary.

[Mohoender]

I know, I was not thinking about passion but I just felt concerned about an observation that was made a few weeks ago when we still were at RPGhost.

Thanks for the answer. I like it better that way actually.

[Marc]

Mmmmmm... Generally, when I found a thread that causes me too much excitation, I have so much problems to translate it to English language that I must cool me down before trying to write a reply. :frust:

No idea about what happened in RPGHost. But I'm with Kato13 regarding that this board seems very good at moderating itself. So, we can try it if people is interested. Why not?

Anyway, you word is an order here, Kato :whip:

[kato13]

I am probably being overly concerned, but in the last 24 years I have seen more boards than I can count enter into a death spiral of childish behavior over politics. Modern politics seems to be a particular problem as it is not an abstract mental exercise but a actual choice that one makes or has made.

IIRC this board only progressed to the point of passive name calling (ie "if you don't agree, you are an idiot" or "only an idiot would think .....") but it was almost enough to cause me to leave, even though I was not directly involved in the discussion. My belief in the people here kept me from leaving, and they did not disappoint me with the maturity that was eventually displayed.

All topics are open but please tread lightly. This board is my baby now and I will protect it.

[General Pain]

I am probably being overly concerned, but in the last 24 years I have seen more boards than I can count enter into a death spiral of childish behavior over politics. Modern politics seems to be a particular problem as it is not an abstract mental exercise but a actual choice that one makes or has made.

IIRC this board only progressed to the point of passive name calling (ie "if you don't agree, you are an idiot" or "only an idiot would think .....") but it was almost enough to cause me to leave, even though I was not directly involved in the discussion. My belief in the people here kept me from leaving, and they did not disappoint me with the maturity that was eventually displayed.

All topics are open but please tread lightly. This board is my baby now and I will protect it.

I agree.... I used to be an atheist but now I realize I'm GOD.

[Targan]

So politics huh? Well, I'm impressed by the fact that when the US banking system makes some mistakes and suffers a crash as a consequence, boy does it take most of the rest of the world with it. Hard core and sad.

[Mohoender]

So far the rest of the world is far from being down unless you coun't out China, India and Russia (about 50% of it). Nobody's is saying it but the Indian stock exchange is going up for most of the time. As we (Western countries) are saving banks with money we don't have (according to our various state deficit) someone might currently be buying a good chunk of our respective countries. May be we should start learning Cantonese, Mandarin or any Indian language;) .

Future will tell but nobody knows it, and obviously not our political leaders (Oops, U.S. still is in the process of choosing one).

[jester]

[QUOTE=Mohoender

Future will tell but nobody knows it, and obviously not our political leaders (Oops, U.S. still is in the process of choosing one).[/QUOTE]


As the line goes,

"Its a huge shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite."

As for the politics and finance issue.

Well that is a big problem with international investment, and dare I go there, I dare, the European Union and tying its currency to the Euro.

It is strong generaly, and some of it was at the stake of dragging down one countries and propping up others, but when something bad happens <like now> they domino as is happening.

Remember, with issues of finance, there is always risk. And if you tie your finances to other systems well then you are exposed to the problems of that system.

A big issue here in the US is the home loan system and dare I, yes I dare SCANDAL! Part of it was several years ago the government demanded and investigated mortgage lenders for not lending to low income disadvantaged people. And other less scrupulous lenders manipulated the books lending to people who did not have the ability and should never have had a loan, but they stood to make a quick immediate profit <they did not look long term> and coupled with governmental pressure they got away with it.

And of course the doctoring the books of most of these companies, and well the bubble popped and here we are!

Another attituide is idiots who buy things they can't afford. When I worked in the law office I had so many clients who could not afford their homes, they had terrible credit ratings, had overly high interest, and paying more for the home than it was worth. And in addition the courts were increasing the alimony and child support because of the worth of the house. And they refused to end the madness. End result, they lost everything.

I think it is in part because so many people today at least in California are fiscaly irresponsible and raised with the idea of credit and credit cards are to be used and used often. Then again we are almost indoctrinated to get credit cards and buy buy buy. They do not think about having to pay for it. And that in part is a problem with society. Heck, I purchased my anatomy books last term and the school had three different fliers for credit cards they put in the shopping bag along with my books. There was a huge banner for a credit card with Wells Fargo, and now that bank has a permament booth right next to the administration office with a couple people durring most school hours hawking their credit cards.

The credit companies were overly predatory, and they were targeting people who had no buisness with credit, either they could not pay for it, or they were too imature to understand and handle it, or, they were and are playing the system taking everything they can, then ewalking away declaring bankruptcy. I actualy have several freinds who have done so multiple times. And then they start over again, its as if they do not learn from their mistakes.

ARGH!!!!!! Enough, before I go insane...okay more than I already am ;)

[headquarters]

Luckily or sadly I am a regular income guy that stand to loose nothing and gain alot by the crisis.(as interest rates drop my house will become cheaper to keep I think).

The world has seen rescessions and economical downfall many times before .
It will pick up again , but in the meantime many tragedies on personal and other levels will be played out .

My friends father gave his son a piece of advice for the future when he was moving out at 18 :" Son you need to learn to things to get ahead in the world of tomorrow- the touch method and Chinese"

[Marc]

Good advice, Headquarters. And with the phrase ""Its a huge shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite" of Jester I feel myself covered in knowledge :D

Today, at launch time, I've been talking with a friend about the financial crisis. Well, right now it's seems the typical subject to talk about in all Europe. In Spain, the economical situation of US is carefully watch these says, and sometimes I have the impression we're waiting for the arrival of the next wave that will be produced at the other side of the Atlantic.

For the moment the situations seems under control, here. But I and my friend have the opinion that this financial crisis could be one more indication that we well see important changes in the world, in the next few years. The shortage of petroleum, the rise of China, the spread of nuclear weapon capacity, the seeming fragility of an economical system based in the need of constant growing, the eternal problem in the near east ... And of course, here en Europe, we haven't two nations taking cofee in the same way. Some old factors and some new ones could change the power balance in the near future.

[headquarters]

Good advice, Headquarters. And with the phrase ""Its a huge shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite" of Jester I feel myself covered in knowledge :D

Today, at launch time, I've been talking with a friend about the financial crisis. Well, right now it's seems the typical subject to talk about in all Europe. In Spain, the economical situation of US is carefully watch these says, and sometimes I have the impression we're waiting for the arrival of the next wave that will be produced at the other side of the Atlantic.

For the moment the situations seems under control, here. But I and my friend have the opinion that this financial crisis could be one more indication that we well see important changes in the world, in the next few years. The shortage of petroleum, the rise of China, the spread of nuclear weapon capacity, the seeming fragility of an economical system based in the need of constant growing, the eternal problem in the near east ... And of course, here en Europe, we haven't two nations taking cofee in the same way. Some old factors and some new ones could change the power balance in the near future.
I agree -from early 2007 when I didnt think about any of this up til now there has been massive turbulence I think .Maybe it has been in the works since end of WWII,maybe since the end of the cold war-either way a situation that spirals downwards in a massive way like this one makes changes possible.
As the big powers face empty coffers -smaller players might act up.Shifts in political opinions of the masses are more common when there are economical problems..

I am guessing that Belgium is going to topple in the next 2 years and split into 2 ,Iceland will go into recievership/bankrupcy ,Russia will expand its influence and gain new cards to play ..

Mucho material for a new go at a MERC 2000 campaign based on current events ..

[jester]

Here is something to consider.

Russia and China were and have been playing with the market manipulating thing. Alot of this revolves around their actions, and of course OPEC, the riples affected the US and then those ripples crossed the Atlantic and are returning to the powers that basicaly helped create them.

Much like the riples on a pond when you throw rocks into it.

[headquarters]

Here is something to consider.

Russia and China were and have been playing with the market manipulating thing. Alot of this revolves around their actions, and of course OPEC, the riples affected the US and then those ripples crossed the Atlantic and are returning to the powers that basicaly helped create them.

Much like the riples on a pond when you throw rocks into it.
Didnt this whole thing start with the US banks folding over sub prime real estate investmenets leading to an international liquid/equity crisis?

[Mohoender]

Marc I agree about the situation change worldwide. We are talking a lot also in France even as the situation remain stable. My wife compare the U.S. situation to that of Spain in the 17-18th century and I found her comparison better than any others.

HQ I would have shared your analysis about Russia but as oil is going down the level of state incom in that country will go down also. I'm convinced that Russia will do good but I doubt it to be a future major player.

Jest, I know that you are very supportive of US and you are right. If I had to trust someone that would be a U.S. citizen but if I had to distrust someone that would be a U.S. politician (or banker:p ). I haven't been in U.S. since 2003 and that's only because I hardly consider your country a democracy anymore. DON'T KILL ME ON THE SPOT. U.S. citizens are democratic, deeply attached to their democracy, honest (in their thinking) and trustworthy, but your administration is not currently so (or so I feel). Hey people, your are the bosses, the guy in the White House and those in Congress are your employees.;) I might be wrong but when you take a oath that is to the people not to the government (you can say something similar about us).

Russia and China don't have much to do with this except that they have the true wealth. You are in California and if I remember well you had an issue some years ago (15 or so) about some public contractor. The governor at the time chose an american company to do the job over a japanese one. The problem was that the american company was producing everything in Korea while the japanese would have done it in the U.S., employing U.S. citizens.

One last thing, we all talk about Russia and China but don't forget India and South America; old habits die hard. Ok, the West currently represent 50% (at least) of the world financial wealth and that is shrinking quickly (not the case when it comes to industrial and raw material production) but we only represent 15% of the population. Therefore, 15% of the world is doing bad, 5% is doing terrible (I don't really know how terrible), that hardly make it for the entire humanity.

Future will be interesting, we are all living trough a great time of world history.:D

[headquarters]

Marc I agree about the situation change worldwide. We are talking a lot also in France even as the situation remain stable. My wife compare the U.S. situation to that of Spain in the 17-18th century and I found her comparison better than any others.

HQ I would have shared your analysis about Russia but as oil is going down the level of state incom in that country will go down also. I'm convinced that Russia will do good but I doubt it to be a future major player.

Jest, I know that you are very supportive of US and you are right. If I had to trust someone that would be a U.S. citizen but if I had to distrust someone that would be a U.S. politician (or banker:p ). I haven't been in U.S. since 2003 and that's only because I hardly consider your country a democracy anymore. DON'T KILL ME ON THE SPOT. U.S. citizens are democratic, deeply attached to their democracy, honest (in their thinking) and trustworthy, but your administration is not currently so (or so I feel). Hey people, your are the bosses, the guy in the White House and those in Congress are your employees.;) I might be wrong but when you take a oath that is to the people not to the government (you can say something similar about us).

Russia and China don't have much to do with this except that they have the true wealth. You are in California and if I remember well you had an issue some years ago (15 or so) about some public contractor. The governor at the time chose an american company to do the job over a japanese one. The problem was that the american company was producing everything in Korea while the japanese would have done it in the U.S., employing U.S. citizens.

One last thing, we all talk about Russia and China but don't forget India and South America; old habits die hard. Ok, the West currently represent 50% (at least) of the world financial wealth and that is shrinking quickly (not the case when it comes to industrial and raw material production) but we only represent 15% of the population. Therefore, 15% of the world is doing bad, 5% is doing terrible (I don't really know how terrible), that hardly make it for the entire humanity.

Future will be interesting, we are all living trough a great time of world history.:D

I gotta specify - noone is going to take the US position away from them any time soon .Russia will not be able to achieve parity with the US -probably ever again.But Mother Russia is indeed a major player today -and will be even more important tomorrow.Russia now exert spressure on the EU like it could only dream of 10 years ago .And 10 years from now -who knows?

Two other major players as you say -India and Brazil will sit at the table and command attention the next few decades.

All IMHO opinion ofcourse-rthe "H" standing for humble

[Mohoender]

HQ, I'm not saying someone is going to take U.S. position any time soon. Just that things might be changing and changing fast. However, U.S. itself might well loose its position and that might already be the case. People's view is changing dramatically and I wouldn't be surprised if U.S. become one among others (a big one so).

I'm an historian and I'm strongly against prospective history as the past never tell you what the future will be. The only thing that I'm sure of is that this crisis will leave its mark. I also have some hope in the coming U.S. election (even as I don't care about who is elected, not really my business) as I would be happy to travel to Vermont again; I'm missing my firends from there. Bah! if I continue to distrust the U.S. administration, I'll travel to Canada.:)

[headquarters]

HQ, I'm not saying someone is going to take U.S. position any time soon. Just that things might be changing and changing fast. However, U.S. itself might well loose its position and that might already be the case. People's view is changing dramatically and I wouldn't be surprised if U.S. become one among others (a big one so).

I'm an historian and I'm strongly against prospective history as the past never tell you what the future will be. The only thing that I'm sure of is that this crisis will leave its mark. I also have some hope in the coming U.S. election (even as I don't care about who is elected, not really my business) as I would be happy to travel to Vermont again; I'm missing my firends from there. Bah! if I continue to distrust the U.S. administration, I'll travel to Canada.:)

The US is already one among several -it has hegemony /supremacy and will retain it for a long time still .But the troubles of war ,financial instability etc have given potential for other players to grow stronger is what I meant .

Why distrust the US administration ? They are like pretty much every other administration only more powerful .

[Marc]

"May you live in interesting times". The ancient chinese curse seems to float around us. ;) .... Thinking about learning a level 0 in farming skill? :D

[Mohoender]

"May you live in interesting times". The ancient chinese curse seems to float around us. ;) .... Thinking about learning a level 0 in farming skill? :D

I have it :D :D :D

[Mohoender]

HQ, we agree about U.S., that's what I meant also.

About the administration, it's kind of personnal but there are currently too much fear and as every administration the one is U.S. is protecting its citizen first. As a foreigner and as someone saying what I think that is potentially dangerous.

For the personnal part, I usually don't travel in countries that have policies that I strongly disaprove. Paradoxaly, I can be very supportive of a people and offensive toward a government (that would be the case with Israel and currently with U.S.). The problem is that today most western governments don't like to be offended so I critisize my own (as I'm protected by my own laws). In the case of U.S., I'm happy to do it here as I found very good people developping very constructive points (also often with very different opinions). We do it with a lot of respect and I apreciate that and, morever, it helps me greatly when deffending U.S.

Moreover, while visiting Vermont, in 2003 I ran into two bad things. First at the border as I didn't know the exact adress of my friends. I lived in the US before that, I asked for help and that worked (as americans are usually helpful) but if I had ran into a stubborn custom agent that could have ended very differently. U.S. is currently holding people illegaly even in regard of the american law and constitution, and I think that Bush administration has passed laws that are outrageous. The fact that it is bigger, makes it dangerous when it is paranoyed. Second, I was almost assaulted by someone just for being French. Of course, these kind of peoples are rare but in time of incertainty they are more dangerous. Currently, I think that things are getting better but I stated that I wouldn't cross the U.S. border as long as Bush is president.

Nevertheless, during all these time I remained confident in the American as a people, despite having a lot of friends around thinking American to be bad guys, and the recent past events proved me right.

I have more concrete reasons to feel that way but I cannot talk about them as I'm not directly involved.:)

[headquarters]

HQ, we agree about U.S., that's what I meant also.

About the administration, it's kind of personnal but there are currently too much fear and as every administration the one is U.S. is protecting its citizen first. As a foreigner and as someone saying what I think that is potentially dangerous.

For the personnal part, I usually don't travel in countries that have policies that I strongly disaprove. Paradoxaly, I can be very supportive of a people and offensive toward a government (that would be the case with Israel and currently with U.S.). The problem is that today most western governments don't like to be offended so I critisize my own (as I'm protected by my own laws). In the case of U.S., I'm happy to do it here as I found very good people developping very constructive points (also often with very different opinions). We do it with a lot of respect and I apreciate that and, morever, it helps me greatly when deffending U.S.

Moreover, while visiting Vermont, in 2003 I ran into two bad things. First at the border as I didn't know the exact adress of my friends. I lived in the US before that, I asked for help and that worked (as americans are usually helpful) but if I had ran into a stubborn custom agent that could have ended very differently. U.S. is currently holding people illegaly even in regard of the american law and constitution, and I think that Bush administration has passed laws that are outrageous. The fact that it is bigger, makes it dangerous when it is paranoyed. Second, I was almost assaulted by someone just for being French. Of course, these kind of peoples are rare but in time of incertainty they are more dangerous. Currently, I think that things are getting better but I stated that I wouldn't cross the U.S. border as long as Bush is president.

Nevertheless, during all these time I remained confident in the American as a people, despite having a lot of friends around thinking American to be bad guys, and the recent past events proved me right.

I have more concrete reasons to feel that way but I cannot talk about them as I'm not directly involved.:)
Ok.I understand .

Loads of good people in the US and if it wasnt for the US there would be the CCCCP -not a good alternative.And not to forget -the RPGs and Twilight in particulat are US products.

I know yanks,have worked with them as civilians and along side them in the military .people are much the same everywhere I find .No good will come from bashing the US of A ,but discussing and critizising is fair -after all its a part of the constitution over there and in France -the two first modern constitutions there ever was ,and the basis for most later ones -including our own of 1814.

So I guess I am a pragmatist - and a live and let live kind of guy .The paradox is that I got my 2safe in the comfortable rich world-citizenship values" as well.

And they tell me that whenever someone is presented as an enemy there is someone who instigated that view aiming to get something out of it .

America used to be the champion of the free world,democracy,liberty etc .But the image has become tarnished a litle every year ever since 1950.
I guess such things fluctuate-and that means that it will turn again to something else.

I really like that there are so many differnet nationalities here now.Adds good perspectives to the game in my view.Love these boards for the mature discussions,good ideas and wry humour.

[Mohoender]

HQ

Nothing to add anymore, I'm entirely buying your point. And from what I read everyone else here thinks pretty much the same on these matters.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

So politics huh? Well, I'm impressed by the fact that when the US banking system makes some mistakes and suffers a crash as a consequence, boy does it take most of the rest of the world with it. Hard core and sad.

One good thing, the price of gas is down. At least I can still run my SUV. :D

Chuck M., Look on the bright side.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

As the line goes,

"Its a huge shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite."

As for the politics and finance issue.

Well that is a big problem with international investment, and dare I go there, I dare, the European Union and tying its currency to the Euro.

It is strong generaly, and some of it was at the stake of dragging down one countries and propping up others, but when something bad happens <like now> they domino as is happening.

Remember, with issues of finance, there is always risk. And if you tie your finances to other systems well then you are exposed to the problems of that system.

A big issue here in the US is the home loan system and dare I, yes I dare SCANDAL! Part of it was several years ago the government demanded and investigated mortgage lenders for not lending to low income disadvantaged people. And other less scrupulous lenders manipulated the books lending to people who did not have the ability and should never have had a loan, but they stood to make a quick immediate profit <they did not look long term> and coupled with governmental pressure they got away with it.

And of course the doctoring the books of most of these companies, and well the bubble popped and here we are!

Another attituide is idiots who buy things they can't afford. When I worked in the law office I had so many clients who could not afford their homes, they had terrible credit ratings, had overly high interest, and paying more for the home than it was worth. And in addition the courts were increasing the alimony and child support because of the worth of the house. And they refused to end the madness. End result, they lost everything.

I think it is in part because so many people today at least in California are fiscaly irresponsible and raised with the idea of credit and credit cards are to be used and used often. Then again we are almost indoctrinated to get credit cards and buy buy buy. They do not think about having to pay for it. And that in part is a problem with society. Heck, I purchased my anatomy books last term and the school had three different fliers for credit cards they put in the shopping bag along with my books. There was a huge banner for a credit card with Wells Fargo, and now that bank has a permament booth right next to the administration office with a couple people durring most school hours hawking their credit cards.

The credit companies were overly predatory, and they were targeting people who had no buisness with credit, either they could not pay for it, or they were too imature to understand and handle it, or, they were and are playing the system taking everything they can, then ewalking away declaring bankruptcy. I actualy have several freinds who have done so multiple times. And then they start over again, its as if they do not learn from their mistakes.

ARGH!!!!!! Enough, before I go insane...okay more than I already am ;)

You, there is a lot of fault to go around, really no one is 100% innocent unless you are a kid. ;) I think we have too much of a society that says, buy, buy, buy!" Got to have the latest HDTV and so on. Me, the last new TV we got was a 1982 Zenith in early 1983. We've used it daily for many hours since then. It's kind of interesting I'm watching the same TV at the age of 42 that I watched when I was 16. With HDTV, I have three of those Gov't Issue boxes so I'm ready when analogue TV goes dark. I think in the future, we will have to get used to a standard of living that is a bit lower than we've had and learn to make decisions on what to buy accordingly. I think the huge shot to our power and prosperity is that after World War II, most of the major nations were blown up to one degree or another except for the U.S. and it took them time to rebuild, anywhere from 20 to 50+ years and they are on a perch equal to us more or less. Add into the fact we lost a lot of our manufacturing jobs and you see what we have today.

Chuck M.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I agree -from early 2007 when I didnt think about any of this up til now there has been massive turbulence I think .Maybe it has been in the works since end of WWII,maybe since the end of the cold war-either way a situation that spirals downwards in a massive way like this one makes changes possible.
As the big powers face empty coffers -smaller players might act up.Shifts in political opinions of the masses are more common when there are economical problems..

I am guessing that Belgium is going to topple in the next 2 years and split into 2 ,Iceland will go into recievership/bankrupcy ,Russia will expand its influence and gain new cards to play ..

Mucho material for a new go at a MERC 2000 campaign based on current events ..

I heard Iceland might by cozying up to Russia. So much for the GIUK Gap (Greenland, Iceland and UK Gap). :p I've heard about Belgium too where there is friction between Flanders and the Walloons.

Sometimes I think we are headed to a Merc: 2000 world or a Dark Conspiracy World, minus 95% of the monsters.

Chuck M.

[jester]

[QUOTE=I think the huge shot to our power and prosperity is that after World War II, most of the major nations were blown up to one degree or another except for the U.S. and it took them time to rebuild, anywhere from 20 to 50+ years and they are on a perch equal to us more or less. Add into the fact we lost a lot of our manufacturing jobs and you see what we have today.

Chuck M.

Chuck M.[/QUOTE]

Chuck I thought that once too, but and this is what was explained to me why our steel and auto industry took a backseat to those of Germany and Japan in the 60s.

We chugged along after WWII untouched by the war. I mean really, the only devestation was our Territories like Hawaii and that was localised mostly to Pearl, Hickam and Kaneohe, Guam, Wake and The Philipines.

But think about this. Japan and Germany were devestated, their industry destroyed.

And through recovery efforts like the Marshall Plan many of those countries were rebuilt with brand new equipment and tools of industry. Short term, it was also good for the United States as we were supplying these items. But long term bad, because we were using old technology and machinery etc, and supplied these rebuilt economies with much more modern tools of industry and thus, they were able to out produce us in those specific areas or at least become competition. Just something to think about.

[headquarters]

Chuck I thought that once too, but and this is what was explained to me why our steel and auto industry took a backseat to those of Germany and Japan in the 60s.

We chugged along after WWII untouched by the war. I mean really, the only devestation was our Territories like Hawaii and that was localised mostly to Pearl, Hickam and Kaneohe, Guam, Wake and The Philipines.

But think about this. Japan and Germany were devestated, their industry destroyed.

And through recovery efforts like the Marshall Plan many of those countries were rebuilt with brand new equipment and tools of industry. Short term, it was also good for the United States as we were supplying these items. But long term bad, because we were using old technology and machinery etc, and supplied these rebuilt economies with much more modern tools of industry and thus, they were able to out produce us in those specific areas or at least become competition. Just something to think about.


Actually the Marshall plan ( which the Soviets and many other eastern European nations applied for too :) ) was a scheme to enable the western European economies to create surplus and become markets for US products.This worked great for app. 20 years -longer in some fields such as armaments technology -as there was virtually zero competition. But in the end Europeans and eventually Asian nations developed capacity to compete with the US.As the markets shrank and competition stiffened the manufacturing jobs and heavy industry in the US ( steel, cars,agriculture) etc had to downsize or even shut down in many places.This coupled with the enormous growth of the Asian economies has given American economy a hard time from the 1980s or so .The hard times are also affecting Europe in similar ways -but as you say -we had a helping hand in the beginning and got a flying start ,as well as having had to pull it self up by its neck - an upward struggle that made the economies more efficient -for a while .

[Mohoender]

One good thing, the price of gas is down. At least I can still run my SUV. :D

Chuck M., Look on the bright side.

If your SUV had been a diesel you would have been able to run it on vegetable oil. Your car would have simply smell like french fries. :D

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Jest, I know that you are very supportive of US and you are right. If I had to trust someone that would be a U.S. citizen but if I had to distrust someone that would be a U.S. politician (or banker:p ). I haven't been in U.S. since 2003 and that's only because I hardly consider your country a democracy anymore. DON'T KILL ME ON THE SPOT. U.S. citizens are democratic, deeply attached to their democracy, honest (in their thinking) and trustworthy, but your administration is not currently so (or so I feel). Hey people, your are the bosses, the guy in the White House and those in Congress are your employees.;) I might be wrong but when you take a oath that is to the people not to the government (you can say something similar about us).





There is a lot of truth in what you say. There have been times they have listened when we managed to generate enough noise but for the most part, you are correct. I'll leave it at that. As to banker and the banking system, well, I don't have a lot of trust in that and sometimes when I pay by check, I get a little paranoid. The other day, I bought some Advantage flea treatment for my cats and I wrote a check. They scanned through one of those instant check machines and it was decline. I had more than enough money in the account to cover it. I worked with a guy a long time ago, he never trusted banks, "all they do is rip you off," he says. He paid his bills in cash and money orders. I'm not a fan of banks either.

I can make a monkey of myself very easily without having the banking system doing it for me. :p :D Later I found out that the store's system could not connect to the bank somehow, if you ask me, the banking system sucks.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

If your SUV had been a diesel you would have been able to run it on vegetable oil. Your car would have simply smell like french fries. :D

True. The thing is that I never heard of any Ford Explorer diesel models, I don't think they ever made one. I know for a while, there were some diesel cars here in the U.S., Volkswagen made them, I remember a diesel Rabbit (I think they are called Golf in Europe) and General Motors made some diesels too, some Chevy's, Oldsmobiles, and even Cadillacs.

Chuck M.

[jester]

Jeep and Ford are working on a diesel model, they have been talking about it for a year, a diesel SUV.

Volkswagen did make several diesel models,

A Jetta, one of their little pickups, the Golf

Audi made a diesel

BMW and Mercedes

Nissan Sentra had a couple models

Even a little Mitsubishi pickup had a diesel model

Those are the ones off the top of my head.

And now with the alternative energy comming up, they are working on several diesel passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs, then again they may just be doing it for public relations.

However, in California, they made it illegal to sell new diesel cars here, although you can bring in used ones. Go figure. What a joke, yes they belch out smoke, but that is just look, diesel engines burn almost 90% of the fuel, whereas gas engines burn about 1/3 of the fuel, so which one polutes more? One you just don't see it which in my view makes it worse.

[Mohoender]

Actually Ford Explorer Diesel remain a ghost car on second hand websites.:p . You'll find plenty just to learn there is none.

Most car makers have diesel models has they are selling them in Europe. Isn't the Army Hummvee a diesel? Does California regulation mean that California national guard cannot buy them?

About polution they polute differently. Gasoline is throwing more CO2 in the atmosphere while diesel is rejecting more micro particules (favoring athma, for exemple). In fact, Gasoline helps warming the atmosphere while diesel helps cooling it up. I used to buy the expensive diesel (with less sulfur...) but, since I learned that, I went back to the regular more poluting one (I don't have athma but suffer from heat). Sorry about others.:D

[jester]

California National Guard have an exemption as they are government, and we all know government can make the rules but they do not have to follow them.

And they allow for large diesel trucks to be sold as those are comerical vehicles. So, comercial is okay but not the common man.

But, there is another way around this silly rule. If the vehicle is registered as an alternative fuel vehicle then it is allowed, thus tell them you drive on biodiesel, and you even get a tax reduction.

So many silly people making laws that they know nothing about.

[Targan]

Here in Australia vehicles that Americans call SUVs are nearly all diesel, mainly for reasons of fuel economy. The profligate waste of petrol that Americans seem to have favoured for decades and decades is a bit bewildering to most Australians. Sorry if this causes offence but the way that America has churned through so much of the world's oil as if it was an infinite resource has always struck me as being incredibly selfish.

[jester]

We "Americans" Targan? Think about this. It is the auto industry not the American people. The industry does as it pleases reguardless of what the people deamnd. And the industry is geared for production of gasoline, they will not change in any meaningful ways beyond paying lipservice whch is more of a PR stunt and to gain tax credits.

Jeep and others have said they would do a biodisel Jeep, and other vehicles would be fuel efficient but, the only places one sees them is in demostrantions and in their catalogues or online.

Remember the auto industry was a giant, and they are dwindling but still have power. They are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are loath to change.

Other examples, the hybrid vehicles, the electic vehicles, the fuel cells, I have seen them I have seen the signs all over the highways for the electric vehicles, but they were short lived and no one could own an electric car, you could only lease one. They lasted for a short time and were then taken back by the manufacturer and we haven't seen them since.

The auto industry is as corupt in my view as the tobacco companies.

An example, that is correct, and illsutrated in two ethics courses I have taken as well as a moviem, the one with that matt daymond I think who plays a genius I think.

"The auto industry does studies for vehicle defects."

They weigh the cost between a recall or refit verses the damage they will have to pay out in wrongful death or personal injuries. And if the cost is less to pay off people killed or injured because of a defective product, then they will continue to let it be defective, even though they know it to be wrong and dangeorus and it could prevent future injury.


And that is the American and I would venture to guess the worlds auto industries. The world of big buisness does not always do what is right. I personaly don't expect it of them. And that is the way of mos buisness, screw the little guy and doing what is right, do what is right for the corporation.

Oh good, this is the political forum so I am safe for my rant.

But, did you get my point? I hope I wasn't too confusing.

[kato13]

IMHO It is really simple. Until now there has been absolutely no economic incentive for non gasoline vehicles for either producers or consumers. Oil is a nearly perfect source of energy. It is portable, stable, cheap (until recently) and very energy dense.

If you can get if for a low price, why not. No country, company, or individual will completely sacrifice their self interest for an undetermined long term benefit of everyone else. If saving oil for the long term is so important are Norway, The UK, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia, and Argentina selfish for selling it.

Oil is not running out now or in the near term and you know what, humanity will deal with dwindling supplies by conserving, and replacing it with new technology, because that is what the market and basic human greed will dictate.

The US has made bad decisions in ignoring coal and nuclear power, but there was no compelling economic reason to do so until now. Solar will increase, as will wind and in our lifetime fusion will be a reality. Personally I feel that butanol from agricultural waste is the 20 year solution to gasoline. It will be able to replace gasoline without the economic hardship of changing the gasoline infrastructure, as it is highly likely that most late model cars can run on 100% butanol safely with no modifications.

Interesting read and another possibility for fuel in the T2k world. Wow I got us back on topic for the forum ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel

[Mohoender]

Jest

I'm not that sure they do as they please. Actually yes until situation changes and I think you all already said this. This is the case right now and, of course, that is valid for individuals too. Most people don't care about mother earth, they just feel concerned about the amount of money in their bank account (Count me among them).

Howerver, Europeans are less trusty than Americans and we might not revert to our old habits. As a result, car manufacturers are changing their models fast (surprisingly fast in fact). They have to, we don't buy them anymore and everyone is reducing their oil consumption: something like -20% for car sell and -10% for fuel consumption (impressive also). We can't drive fast anymore, therefore, we buy simpler, slower cars. Give me a Porsche and I'll drive between 180-200 miles/hr. I can't, then, I don't buy it (still I love that car, and their SUV is gorgeous).

Funny, that the smallest car around my place is a chevy (except for a few japanese ones).

By the way I have heard that gasoline price in U.S. is currently about 4$ (may be more) a gallon. If that is true, it means that ours is no more or even less expensive than yours. Think of it, we had about a 20-30% increase over the last 7-8 years, U.S. had live through a 100% increase in the same time (about 300-400% over the past 15 years). Bad time for american cars. Americans will be thinking about it.

One last thing, How is it to live in the Newest Socialist Country (with all that state money sent into banks)? Don't you fear of being renamed Socialist Union of Northern America (S.U.N.A.) :p :D

[headquarters]

Jest

I'm not that sure they do as they please. Actually yes until situation changes and I think you all already said this. This is the case right now and, of course, that is valid for individuals too. Most people don't care about mother earth, they just feel concerned about the amount of money in their bank account (Count me among them).

Howerver, Europeans are less trusty than Americans and we might not revert to our old habits. As a result, car manufacturers are changing their models fast (surprisingly fast in fact). They have to, we don't buy them anymore and everyone is reducing their oil consumption: something like -20% for car sell and -10% for fuel consumption (impressive also). We can't drive fast anymore, therefore, we buy simpler, slower cars. Give me a Porsche and I'll drive between 180-200 miles/hr. I can't, then, I don't buy it (still I love that car, and their SUV is gorgeous).

Funny, that the smallest car around my place is a chevy (except for a few japanese ones).

By the way I have heard that gasoline price in U.S. is currently about 4$ (may be more) a gallon. If that is true, it means that ours is no more or even less expensive than yours. Think of it, we had about a 20-30% increase over the last 7-8 years, U.S. had live through a 100% increase in the same time (about 300-400% over the past 15 years). Bad time for american cars. Americans will be thinking about it.

One last thing, How is it to live in the Newest Socialist Country (with all that state money sent into banks)? Don't you fear of being renamed Socialist Union of Northern America (S.U.N.A.) :p :D

4 dollars a gallon is roughly 1/3 of the price of diesel and gas up here in Norway, -we pay app. 3 dollars pr litre of gas or diesel.

We could probably pump it ashore and sell it for 50 cent a litreand still make tons of dough - but the enviroment/green taxes etc drive the prices up.

Taxing fuel consumption is the wealthy nations is the way to go unless you want overconsumption .

[Mohoender]

4 dollars a gallon is roughly 1/3 of the price of diesel and gas up here in Norway, -we pay app. 3 dollars pr litre of gas or diesel.

We could probably pump it ashore and sell it for 50 cent a litreand still make tons of dough - but the enviroment/green taxes etc drive the prices up.

Taxing fuel consumption is the wealthy nations is the way to go unless you want overconsumption .

Didn't know that about Norway. I have to take it into account if I want to visit (actually I might not visit, then). The price here is about 1$/liter for gasoline and 90 cents for diesel (counting the exchange rate of course). If prices go up to 3$/a liter, I'll buy a horse. I might be wrong with the exchange estimate then.

That gives me an idea of what our future might be. I'll be dreaming about guillotines again. Time for a free shaving ("on rase gratis") :D .

[headquarters]

Didn't know that about Norway. I have to take it into account if I want to visit (actually I might not visit, then). The price here is about 1$/liter for gasoline and 90 cents for diesel (counting the exchange rate of course). If prices go up to 3$/a liter, I'll buy a horse. I might be wrong with the exchange estimate then.

That gives me an idea of what our future might be. I'll be dreaming about guillotines again. Time for a free shaving ("on rase gratis") :D .
yep thats app 14 Norwegian or ca 3 us dollars or ca 1,75 euros pr litre of fuel

a little cheaper for truckers that can buy on a special business quota.

[jester]

Ah, here are some things to consider guys.

1.) America has been a car culture since we burst onto the world scene. Then we were the largest producer for fuel, even for export. Then again that was just comming out of a time when gasoline was a useless waste product. But, we have been a car culture for about 100 years at this point. So, how do we change something that has been so deeply engrained in our culture over night?

2.) As a resule of the above, we do not have a large reliable mass transit in many areas, especialy west of the Missississippi, so basicaly half the country is without a good, working system. They had one in the metro Southern California area prior to the 1960s, but they got rid of it, because of the car culture. But, it would not have kept up with demand today and now we are caught in a lurch and now scrambling to make stop gap rail systems localy. Remember, even passenger cross country travel by rail is not everywhere. AMTRAK a private concern that is funded by the government just so this country does have a passenger rail system has actualy reduced the routes it travels and the number of stops at many of the routes it maintains. And their buisness has been on the upswing due to the high cost and terrible treatment the airlines have managed to do. Simply put, we have a inadeuqate local or national rail system for passenger service and such has been the case since my father was a boy.

As an aside, this could be an interesting thing in the T2K world with the shuttling of troops around the nation. Sending them from the midwest to the West Coast where they would sail by ship to the Asian or Alaskan front, or from California to Europe.

3.) We are a pretty large country. And without a reliable or far reaching mass transit what is the solution?

Those are just some of the things.

As for the cost of fuel, it was about $1.50 and sometimes less than 1.00.

About a year ago, I recall filling up my gas tank the evening before my last surgery, fuel was 1.90, within a few weeks it jumped to 2.50, and kept climbing, 3.00, 3.50, then iit broke 4.00 and within what four months ago peaked at 4.80, some places it had broken the 5.00 a gallon mark. And now it is in the 2.50 range. But a jump from the 1.90 to 5.00 mark is an increase of 150% in a year. That is beyond the pale, and can an economy, especialy one that is geared around the internal combustion engine take a hit like that, and a price increase in that short of time without negative consequences?

Just some thoughts.

[Mohoender]

Jest

I agree with all your thoughts. Europe will have some of the same problem when going to the countryside as we got rid of the local train in the 60's and 70's (with a few exceptions).

I have heard many Americans recently saying that they were driving less (your gas consumption proves it) so keep up. Personnaly, my point is not to get rid of cars but to have the car business working a little bit more in everyones interest (their own included). I'm not really interested in electric cars and don't think they are a solution (unless you want a world full of used batteries we cannot get rid of). At least we won't have to fear from global warming, we will simply have to deal with acid rains...

However, using some waste sounds as an idea to develop and using less oil to power a car sound definitely as a good one (already well under way). No reason to change your way of life then.

[jester]

Jest

I agree with all your thoughts. Europe will have some of the same problem when going to the countryside as we got rid of the local train in the 60's and 70's (with a few exceptions).

I have heard many Americans recently saying that they were driving less (your gas consumption proves it) so keep up. Personnaly, my point is not to get rid of cars but to have the car business working a little bit more in everyones interest (their own included). I'm not really interested in electric cars and don't think they are a solution (unless you want a world full of used batteries we cannot get rid of). At least we won't have to fear from global warming, we will simply have to deal with acid rains...

However, using some waste sounds as an idea to develop and using less oil to power a car sound definitely as a good one (already well under way). No reason to change your way of life then.

Sh, but it does need to change, the mindset, and yes that includes the auto industry. Until they change and come up with a product that they are really behind then the status quo will remain the same.

As for the whole battery idea, I totaly agree, that is what people do not think of when they talk of the alternative electric vehicles. The batteries need to be replaced every six or so years, then what does one do with them?

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Jeep and Ford are working on a diesel model, they have been talking about it for a year, a diesel SUV.

Volkswagen did make several diesel models,

A Jetta, one of their little pickups, the Golf

Audi made a diesel

BMW and Mercedes

Nissan Sentra had a couple models

Even a little Mitsubishi pickup had a diesel model

Those are the ones off the top of my head.

And now with the alternative energy comming up, they are working on several diesel passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs, then again they may just be doing it for public relations.

However, in California, they made it illegal to sell new diesel cars here, although you can bring in used ones. Go figure. What a joke, yes they belch out smoke, but that is just look, diesel engines burn almost 90% of the fuel, whereas gas engines burn about 1/3 of the fuel, so which one polutes more? One you just don't see it which in my view makes it worse.

Hmmm, I did look in a few repair manuals and Ford did make a few diesels in the 1980's and 1990's as well, I think they were mostly small pickups like the Ranger.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Actually Ford Explorer Diesel remain a ghost car on second hand websites.:p . You'll find plenty just to learn there is none.

Most car makers have diesel models has they are selling them in Europe. Isn't the Army Hummvee a diesel? Does California regulation mean that California national guard cannot buy them?

About polution they polute differently. Gasoline is throwing more CO2 in the atmosphere while diesel is rejecting more micro particules (favoring athma, for exemple). In fact, Gasoline helps warming the atmosphere while diesel helps cooling it up. I used to buy the expensive diesel (with less sulfur...) but, since I learned that, I went back to the regular more poluting one (I don't have athma but suffer from heat). Sorry about others.:D

Yeah, I keep getting asked of there is a Ford Explorer diesel, I remember one guy in Quebec asked me. So far, there are none although the rumors still fly around.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Sh, but it does need to change, the mindset, and yes that includes the auto industry. Until they change and come up with a product that they are really behind then the status quo will remain the same.

As for the whole battery idea, I totaly agree, that is what people do not think of when they talk of the alternative electric vehicles. The batteries need to be replaced every six or so years, then what does one do with them?

Yeah, I'm afraid most people in North America would like the cars they generally always had. There are some who would like to have a car much like the time we grew up in. My aunt had a 1966 Ford Galaxie station wagon and my other aunt had a huge 1968 Plymouth station wagon. I think the mini-van and SUV took the place of that because that is what the consumer wants. I think maybe if we go back to more of a full-sized station wagon, that will be OK, I seem to remember the last ones of that type were made in the 1980's or so. I think the best bet is for us to go to fuels like bio-diesel, or some form of alcohol where we can get those from waste. Hybrids are OK, but again, as it is mentioned here, "what do you do with the dead batteries?"

[Targan]

Hybrids are OK, but again, as it is mentioned here, "what do you do with the dead batteries?"
The HEMTTA3 uses a ProPulse power plant system with ultracapacitors. Ultracapicitors seem to me to be the way of the future (well those and fuel cells). Check out ultracapcitors, lots of info on the internet. Far superior to batteries and last orders of magnitude longer.

[jester]

Yeah, I'm afraid most people in North America would like the cars they generally always had. There are some who would like to have a car much like the time we grew up in. My aunt had a 1966 Ford Galaxie station wagon and my other aunt had a huge 1968 Plymouth station wagon. I think the mini-van and SUV took the place of that because that is what the consumer wants. I think maybe if we go back to more of a full-sized station wagon, that will be OK, I seem to remember the last ones of that type were made in the 1980's or so. I think the best bet is for us to go to fuels like bio-diesel, or some form of alcohol where we can get those from waste. Hybrids are OK, but again, as it is mentioned here, "what do you do with the dead batteries?"


Yes, as I mentioned before, it is human nature to loath change, and that is the problem with big cars, as I said, it is part of the car culture that we developed as a nation.

And another thing on that line. Everyone says we should convert to more effeicnet vehicles. That is what we hear from the hollywierd elite. They fail to grasp that a persons car is usualy the second largest investment a person makes after a home. They are a bit pricey and folks buy them on credit usualy, paying them off over a couple years. With the new technology of bio diesel, and fuel cells and electric vehicles and all the other types they are a signifigant amount higher in purchase cost than the vehicle one has now, so where on earth does a common person get the money to pay for it? I imagine it would be like trying to carry on a meaningful conversation with the likes of Paris Hilton, they just don't comprehend. Kinda like like what Marie Antonette allegedly said, "Well if the pesants don't have bread, then let them eat cake." ARGH!!!!

I suggest that alot of the technology that is on the market today is transtional and whatever it is that is eventualy developed will replace gasoline and these other methods. Or humanity will return to living in the dark at night.

As for biodiesel and alcohol, those are agricultural products and are labor and fuel intensive not to mention land intensive which poses their own problems.

Hmmm, hydro power, solar power, tidal power, geothermal power <a finite resource as well, but not for several thousand years> nuclear power, again finite, but still long term.

However, the whole methane generator systems that I have seen and read about seem encouraging, a dairy farm is able to supply its own power for operations and send some back into the grid, that is encouraging. Imagine what could be done with a municiple sewage plant? Just build a dome over the ponds much like they do with desalinization plants to collect the methane and bleed it off.

[Mohoender]

Understand your point about less advantaged people but that would probably be a typical American problem at the moment. As you said that is part of your culture and you'll have to face a huge infrastructure problem. However, the most famous American car in history remained the "Ford T" and that is far from being big.

Europeans tend to use smaller car as we have less free space to drive them may be. That's also why I prefer to do better with existing technologies. It is cheaper to make more effecient fuel engines that to make brand new engines using the best improvement we can think of.

In France, for now, when you buy less consuming vehicles you get a 700€ to 1200€ (the second bonus remain a dream to these days) bonus from the state (roughly 1000$ to 1600$) + an average constructor bonus of 2000€. That makes people think. You also can sell your older models for a guaranted price: I sold my wife 20 years old city car for 2500-3000€ (constructor bonus included; hey they are not crazy).

Moreover, they are curently taking out several cars that will cost you less than 9000€. Still a big investment but affordable by more people. Of course they are not the less consuming ones and the most fancy cars but they are now very decent for that price with plenty of room for the family. The Funny thing is that these car were first bought by wealthy people (guess why :D). Nevertheless, one of my neighbour, who happen to be one of the poorest familly around, just bought one going from a near ruin to a decent vehicle. They are nice people and I was truly happy for them.

A side advantage is that they don't rely on much electronics and would work in T2K. ;) Here is the most popular model at the moment in France: the Logan MCV.

[Targan]

And another thing on that line. Everyone says we should convert to more effeicnet vehicles. That is what we hear from the hollywierd elite. They fail to grasp that a persons car is usualy the second largest investment a person makes after a home.
I understand that it is fairly common among the American middle class to have a lot more vehicles per household than here in Australia. Around here one or two cars per family is normal and if it is two cars most commonly only one will be a large car.

One again apologies in advance for any offence but it really pisses me off when people buy big four wheel drives (what Americans call SUVs) but they never leave urban areas. I have no problem with people owning four wheel drives because they need off-road and/or towing capability but owning an SUV or huge pickup truck for urban driving strikes me as, well, blindingly stupid.

[jester]

I understand that it is fairly common among the American middle class to have a lot more vehicles per household than here in Australia. Around here one or two cars per family is normal and if it is two cars most commonly only one will be a large car.

One again apologies in advance for any offence but it really pisses me off when people buy big four wheel drives (what Americans call SUVs) but they never leave urban areas. I have no problem with people owning four wheel drives because they need off-road and/or towing capability but owning an SUV or huge pickup truck for urban driving strikes me as, well, blindingly stupid.


Then we are in agreement!!!!!

I HATE the soccer moms who have the super monster truck, and the only off roading they do is when they drive on the sidewalk because it is to much vehicle for them to handle. I remember when I worked for the V.A. hospital the number two person in charge a royal bitch, had a mustange and a super monster truck. She would damn near run me over each time she drove the mustang, and she would take up three parking spaces and take out some of the grass from her idiot park job. One day I asked if she liked doing out door or what she hauled with it. I already knew the answer. Her reply was "Oh I don't, I just like the security and being up high to see." Oh, she also remarked how cute my lil jeep was. But, my jeep actualy had mud on the tires and knew the fun of a country dirt road in the desert and mountains..

I know so many idiots who have monester trucks like that and they have my contempt. What is even funnier, is in metro LA they have 4 wheel drives and it rains, they put their vehicles in 4 wheel drive! ARGH!!!! someone shoot me now!

As for multiple cars per family, generaly it is two cars per family. Of course lots of teenagers end up with cars too, not all mind you but a good portion, most often they buy them with money earned themselves and this can increase the number.

I am weird, I have right now, six, no seven cars. well five cars and two trucks! One is in the process of transfering to a freind, one needs a new engine in the garage, that is converted for desert treks, one is in the garage well, its a FIAT, my uncle left it to me. One is my uncles working car that he left me, another is a car I let my uncle use until he killed it and didn't get rid of, another is a tired worn out diesel volkswagen I drove, and my current primary car. Of course when it comes down two it, I will have three cars, or two and a truck, of course one was left to me. As I said I am different.

But, two cars is the norm here, at least in the bedroom communities of California. And as I said we do not have a mass transit system worth a damn. The bottom line, alot of people have a commute of 40 plus miles to work each way. For me, a 30 to 40 minute commute is pretty good, and that is the case for most people in my city.

[Mohoender]

Then we are in agreement!!!!!

I HATE the soccer moms who have the super monster truck, and the only off roading they do is when they drive on the sidewalk because it is to much vehicle for them to handle...

I know so many idiots who have monester trucks like that and they have my contempt. What is even funnier, is in metro LA they have 4 wheel drives and it rains, they put their vehicles in 4 wheel drive! ARGH!!!! someone shoot me now!



About the "soccer moms" that seem to be an international type as we have one at my daughter school but that goes with the mom more than with the car. The bigger the car the less caring they have to give.:D

A small story about this (true one as I have an eyewitness to it): a man (obviously wealthy) is trying to find a parking space for its large Jaguar. After 30 minutes running around the block he finally find one. A little girl (in her 20's) jumped in with her tiny austin mini. The guy is mad and ask her to leaving pointing out that he was there first (he is right about this). Her answer is "I'm young and pretty, I can do as I please". The man doesn't say a word, gets back to his car, puts it on rear and crushes the austin mini. He goes out before leaving and tells her "I'm old, mean and I have the best insurance, have a good day". Then, he left the spot while the girl was crying on her ruined car. I hope I have been clear as I love that one.:p :D

About the guys putting there FWD with rain that might be justified. I have a small suzuki jimny (really tiny) and I'm in the mountain so i'm using it often. However, when it rains, if you don't put the FWD on you have a good chance to jump off the cliff after two or three turns. That is also true when driving on a nice strait road. It is the only problem that I can see with this car. Otherwise, you can almost climb trees with it. By the way my other car is a regular drive one but with reinforced floor as the roads in my area are not that good. Most roads have only enough room for one car but they are two ways with trucks and buses taking them. I'm laughing my ass off each time I see some city guy with a Hummvee; strangely only city guys have Hummvees.:D In my area the most common FWD will be japanese models with Lada Niva coming second and Land rovers (mostly older models) coming third.

[Marc]

Bon dia!

I confirm the point about the moms in hug cars. We have the same species here. Same arguments: high driving position, safety, bla,bla,bla...

I have the big luck to live at only 2 Km from my working place :D . So I normally go to work in my bicycle or on foot. I live in a town with roughly 10.000 inhabitant, so nearly everybody who is working in my same industrial park lives between 1 and 3 km from the working place. But I'm nearly the only person in the entire park that not goes there by car. The others are the teenagers not older enough to get the driving licence (18 years in Spain). One worker, one car. Hundreds of cars running, only to cover 4 km per day... And I know that each of this persons can give me a handful of reasons to use the car in such a small run... Strange think our advanced society...:) Perhaps it sound stupid but I think that little things like that causes our western world to lose momentum.

[Mohoender]

Marc

I don't think it sounds stupid, I even have a neighbour who takes her car to bring her kids to school (300 meters away) and, then, back home. :D . Watch the south african movie "the gods must be crazy", it says it all.

Your position might be a little old fashioned but still very accurate to these days (saddly in my opinion).

[Targan]

I cycle to and from work too and when I have a motorised vehicle it is a motorbike. Not riding a motorbike at the moment though because every motorbike I've ever owned I've written off and my shoulder is still recovering from my last big crash.

The "better safety" argument used by "soccer moms" is incredibly selfish because while it might be safer for them and their family it makes it less safe for other road users. And sure, they are high up so they have better visibility but it reduces visibility for the smaller vehicles around them. I have nothing but contempt for that mindset. I want to keep my family safe too but not if it means metaphorically flipping the bird to the rest of my community.

Rant over.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I understand that it is fairly common among the American middle class to have a lot more vehicles per household than here in Australia. Around here one or two cars per family is normal and if it is two cars most commonly only one will be a large car.

One again apologies in advance for any offence but it really pisses me off when people buy big four wheel drives (what Americans call SUVs) but they never leave urban areas. I have no problem with people owning four wheel drives because they need off-road and/or towing capability but owning an SUV or huge pickup truck for urban driving strikes me as, well, blindingly stupid.

Well, I admit I have a Ford Explorer but it isn't really a huge SUV, it is based on the Ranger chassis which is a small pickup. It is good to have in the snow plus I do like to have the ability to haul things inside. My buddy's Ford F-150 pickup is out of commission so he asked me to pick up a projection HDTV and it just fit inside the Explorer. I do admit I love the big cars that were made in the 1950's to the 1970's here in the U.S.

I'm still for the consumer choosing what he/she wants along with the free market but I'll leave it at this, if you're willing to pay for it and not complain, then more power to you. I do agree though that using a Hummer to shuttle kids to soccer practice is a bit over the top.

Chuck M.

[Targan]

I'm still for the consumer choosing what he/she wants along with the free market but I'll leave it at this, if you're willing to pay for it and not complain, then more power to you.
But oil is a finite resource. Why is it okay for one nation that just happens to have huge wealth at this point along the human timeline to use up the vast majority of the world's oil all by its self when it could use it much less quickly by adopting more fuel efficient vehicles or, even better, spend some of that vast wealth on developing engines that run on other fuel sources?

Apologies again for any offence but "we have a free market economy so it is fair and reasonable for anyone with sufficient money to drive whatever they like and burn as much fuel as they like" strikes me as greedy and, dare I say it, ignorant. One day, hopefully, currently underdeveloped countries will become developed countries and will need raw materials and things like crude oil and they'll look around and realise that in the decades and centuries before the countries that became developed and rich first used everything up. And used up the resources in an incredibly wasteful way which just adds insult to injury. As a person living in a rich western country I feel very guilty about these things. We tend not to care about those that will come after us and especially seem not to care about those who will come after us who are not part of our own nation or culture.

[kato13]

Apologies again for any offence but "we have a free market economy so it is fair and reasonable for anyone with sufficient money to drive whatever they like and burn as much fuel as they like" strikes me as greedy and, dare I say it, ignorant.

Targan you know that the people here are not in general ignorant of the subjects they discuss, and if they are they are usually open to a multitude of opinions. Remember one hundred well informed people can view the same facts and come up with one hundred very different conclusions.

[Targan]

Yes that was a rather intemperate remark on my part. I have been bad :(

[headquarters]

The whole domination of the world by the western powers are based on upholding a consumer economy on a scale never seen before in history.(well maybe some of the old crazy royal families in ancient Rome could match -burning down Rome and all..)

There is really only one incentive/driving power behind political and in the same footsteps -military expansion .

Economics .

There have been older systems that include less turn over,less money ( if any at all) etc -but it is a proven fact that these did not yield the same socioeconomic changes OR technological advances - and those changes that did come were infinitely slower -taking many generations to take root.

(democracy,electricity,abolition,antibiotics,legal equality etc)

Now- the consumer economy is the driving power behind the hegemony of the west -and the motivation for it .It is geared largely to run on fossil fuels -petroleum products in particular .The faster you can burn the oil means that the faster money will come in to fill your coffers.

A change will not come before it will start paying of to use other fuels and/or people start getting serious about enviromentalism meaning voting into power those who would actually let the consumer economy suffer and the enviroment thrive.This means massive social upheaval and political change .Millions of jobs will be lost .Living standards will drop drastically .The economy would have to change meaning that manufacture would be done closer to the markets,recycling would be the order of the day and people would have to pay more dearly for the items they purchase -and also they would have to take better care of them as they are more expensive than before.

Quite possibly the drop in living standards would only be felt for those of us lucky enough to be in rich western countries or are rich in the poor world .

The oil will run out .The wars to control it will become harsher and larger in scale and involve more of us than today .Hopefully noone will nuke eachother in the process ,but you never know.

Afterwards a new economic system will emerge -one that uses less petroleum products ,and quite posibly relies heavily on another fuel source .Some say this will be thorium or uranium even -meaning that new wars will follow to conquer areas where this resource is abundant etc etc .

There is always a reason to hope that alternate fuels like vegetable oils etc will win the day and become prevalent -meaning that a new economy based on the supply of such oil could become big.Some parts of the world already run vehicles on alcohol and vegetable oil etc .But in the end I take my marxist view of the historic process over the more cheery " it will all be alright in the end "..

all in my humble opinion of course

[Mohoender]

HQ

I kind of agree with you and my problem is: if someone can site me an invention that was made over the past 60 years, I'll be happy to know. I'm not talking of improvement but of pure inventions (inventions that have an impact also such as TV, car, radio, aircrafts, fuel engine...). As far as I know all that we have today was invented at least 60 years + ago and that might bring us to the point that you gave about older societies. Aren't we slowing down, making the crisis perfectly normal? When I studied in the U.S. in the 1990's, I found an impressive and rich society; when I visited in the 2000's I found a country getting poorer and fast (not impressed anymore); a country that had developped some aspects that I somewhat could compare to Brazil. Today, my computer, car... are much more modern than the ones own by my U.S. friends unless they have enough money to buy foreign goods. Don't worry we are following the same path: over the past year France got less unemployed but the percentage of poor jumped from 11% to 13%. In the meantime, India got 22% more millionaires.

Then, I agree about hoping for some changes just to start the engine again. I don't know what you mean by economics but currently I found that our societies have gone for profits only, leaving benefits behind. Profit, from my point of view, is only the fuel and we forgot putting it in the engine. I have more respect for Howard Hugues when he pursues his crazy dreams or for Bill Gates when he gives 500 million$ for AIDS than for the guy currently leading Mycrosoft or IBM (I forgot which one) when he buys a third huge yacht. I'm all in support of life pleasure but when it finally goes to only that, I'm not sure we are going somewhere.

However, I agree with you about the idea that "everything will be fine at the end". Strangely I consider a possible general nuclear burst to be part of the fine end. Not one I'm hoping for so, therefore, If we could avoid that one, I'll be more than happy.:D

[Targan]

I kind of agree with you and my problem is: if someone can site me an invention that was made over the past 60 years, I'll be happy to know. I'm not talking of improvement but of pure inventions (inventions that have an impact also such as TV, car, radio, aircrafts, fuel engine...).
The fuel cell. Particularly the ones that run on hydrocarbons. They are the way of the future.

[Mohoender]

The fuel cell. Particularly the ones that run on hydrocarbons. They are the way of the future.

Didn't thought about them, that might be a very positive sign.:)

[jester]

Didn't thought about them, that might be a very positive sign.:)


Are you smoking something? And you aren't sharing it!!!!

Solar cells
Chemo Therapy
Microprocessor
Micro Surgery
Artificial Heart


The new developements are there, they may be small, but small things do have an impact even though they go unnoticed.

[Mohoender]

Are you smoking something? And you aren't sharing it!!!!

Solar cells
Chemo Therapy
Microprocessor
Micro Surgery
Artificial Heart


The new developements are there, they may be small, but small things do have an impact even though they go unnoticed.

I was waiting for you on that one :)

Solar cells are known since something like 1869 (sorry the process was recognized in 1839 and the first cells were made in 1883), chemotherapy was first used in 1909 (sifylis I think), microporcessor is only an improvement and computers were invented before WWII, microsurgery is an improvement that dates back to the early 1960's (I give you that one, nevertheless, as it is only about 50 years old), artificial heart could be considered as one but the first application dates back to 1953 (55 years ago again so I wasn't that far).

So, no I'm not smoking anything but I wish I was. However, I remain open to objections and I'll be happy to be proved wrong:D Actually, I was by Targan (fuel cells dated back to the 1970's, I overlooked that one) and I hope someone can find more counterexemple of this. Our grandparents have done a lot, I still wait for our parents to prove the same, we haven't done that much so far (may be nothing) and hope that our kids will.

This in an opinion of course, don't take it as an offense, and I hope to change it some day. The problem, is that I have been conforted in it overtime. Moreover, when I see American friends working like crazy just to get poorer everyday that makes me mad, about as much as when I see somme people (for exemple in France) that can make a descent living just siting around in their armchair. Nothing wrong about sitting around but, then, assume your choice. I'll agree that everyone must get enough to eat but I don't see why they should deserve a flat screen cable TV and a cell phone.

[jester]

ARGH!!! You are playing with a fine line here.

Da Vinci had concepts for alot of ideas and things too, but the ability to follow through was not possible for another four hundred years. There are big differences between theory and reality.

Lets follow through with,

Synthetic Fibers
Lazer Technology
FIBER OPTICs
MASS COMMUNICATION <the ability to transfer massive amounts of data>
Micro Dot
Space Tavel
Deep Sea Exploration
Deep Space Exploration
Rusable Space Vehicle
Modern metalurgy <we have developed some stuff that leaves the bessemer process in the stone age>

As for chemo therapy I was speaking in the common use as a anti cancer drug treatment. Which is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was 40, 30, 20 and even 10 years ago.

HIV treatment, in the last 30 years it has improved.

Anti Biotics, from Sulfa drugs, to Penicilin to any number of modern drugs that are being developed all the time. <of course new bacteria are also developed as well.>


Some of the above systems needs more than one form of technology and developement to make them work.

I am certain you can find primative examples and theories in history to say "its not new" but the idea and the reality of the idea are two different things. I mean going to the moon is not a new concept. Jules Verne even wrote a storey about it, as he did with deep sea exploration. However, the actual brining it to fruitiion is something all together different.

Remember, there is often a lag of technology even when it is available. Two prime examples would be the B-52 and then the Space Shuttle. When they were designed they have the technology of the day, but by the time they were completed and came off the assembly line the technology included in them was old. The same applies to many of the modern fighter aircraft, the lag between design and completed. Which makes one wonder what the current technology is that hasn't be incorporated into something?

[Mohoender]

You are right about the fine line. That's why I said pure invention no improvements or applications. In fact, what I truly think is that people are inventing new things almost every day (small ones and big ones). The true problem will be that our current society will not finance them thinking that their ideas are either too risky or too expensive (after all they are fools). Even the new exemples that you gave are mostly from the early 1960's (for the most recent ones).

Synthetic Fibers (artificial silk 1799)
Lazer Technology (Einstein 1917, 1950 for a working one)
FIBER OPTICs (principle 1840, 1952 for a working one)
MASS COMMUNICATION <the ability to transfer massive amounts of data> (field of study not an invention)
Micro Dot (working process in 1870, WWI and WWII...)
Space Tavel (working process 1919, V2 in space in 1942, sputnik 1957)
Deep Sea Exploration (first working instrument 1840, lowest ocean point at 10911m, Jacques Piccard in 1960, nothing more ever since)
Deep Space Exploration (1957-1976, no program since that time outside of probes)
Reusable Space Vehicle (probably)
Modern metalurgy (to vast a domain as you said)

As a result we do a lot of research to improve the existing. Why starting an all new concept we just need to improve the old ones. If you go to people they are inventive, many have talents (if not all) and they are often dedicated. That's why I agree with HQ when he says that everything at the end will be fine.

I grew up dreaming about Mars and whatching Outlands. I woke up recently to learn that U.S. will stop actively participate in the international space program (too expensive). In the meantime, chinese have made a missile that can destroy sattelites (2005), they are sending people into space, they plan to land on the moon, they have organized olympics games for the handicaped that matched the normal one (almost no images of it), the Russians are selling Europe Soyuz, Iran sent a sattelite in orbit... I happen to hope being Chinese and I don't like that idea.

A friend of mine who died last year told me some times before that our society is not collapsing. He argued that it already collapsed some 40 or 50 years ago, stating that we just don't know about it. He had a good chance to be right but that doesn't mean the end. There is a good chance that we will go for a new start but it might be good not to wait too long. It's nice to finance the banks but he might be wiser to finance "Joe the Plumber" to put it as your candidates did. I would think that we baddly need some Openheimer, Einstein, Ferdinand Porsche, Clement Ader, Wrights brothers...

[kato13]

You are right about the fine line. That's why I said pure invention no improvements or applications.


There is a problem with the concept of "pure invention". IC engines can be traced back to the Greek steam engines.

Personally I think cell phones are a revolutionary advance which happens to be bolted onto an older technology (telephone system) and using another older technology (radio waves). But look at how it revolutionized communications in Africa and eased communications in areas of Europe where stringing wire was difficult.

My suggestions would include
Cell Phone
RFID tags
CAT/MRI scanning equipment
Internet
Digital Data Storage
GPS
Buckytubes

Of course someone could say GPS is just an improvement over the compass, sextant and clock. While digital data storage is only an advanced form of punch cards. When you increase the ease of use of something by a factor of over one million it really should be considered a revolutionary advance IMO.

And there is a reason why 60 years was picked. World War II accelerated development in some areas by 30 years IMO, leading to a bit of a skew in a chart of humanity's development of technology.

[jester]

You are right about the fine line. That's why I said pure invention no improvements or applications. In fact, what I truly think is that people are inventing new things almost every day (small ones and big ones). The true problem will be that our current society will not finance them thinking that their ideas are either too risky or too expensive (after all they are fools). Even the new exemples that you gave are mostly from the early 1960's (for the most recent ones).

Synthetic Fibers (artificial silk 1799)
Lazer Technology (Einstein 1917, 1950 for a working one)
FIBER OPTICs (principle 1840, 1952 for a working one)
MASS COMMUNICATION <the ability to transfer massive amounts of data> (field of study not an invention)
Micro Dot (working process in 1870, WWI and WWII...)
Space Tavel (working process 1919, V2 in space in 1942, sputnik 1957)
Deep Sea Exploration (first working instrument 1840, lowest ocean point at 10911m, Jacques Piccard in 1960, nothing more ever since)
Deep Space Exploration (1957-1976, no program since that time outside of probes)
Reusable Space Vehicle (probably)
Modern metalurgy (to vast a domain as you said)

As a result we do a lot of research to improve the existing. Why starting an all new concept we just need to improve the old ones. If you go to people they are inventive, many have talents (if not all) and they are often dedicated. That's why I agree with HQ when he says that everything at the end will be fine.

I grew up dreaming about Mars and whatching Outlands. I woke up recently to learn that U.S. will stop actively participate in the international space program (too expensive). In the meantime, chinese have made a missile that can destroy sattelites (2005), they are sending people into space, they plan to land on the moon, they have organized olympics games for the handicaped that matched the normal one (almost no images of it), the Russians are selling Europe Soyuz, Iran sent a sattelite in orbit... I happen to hope being Chinese and I don't like that idea.

A friend of mine who died last year told me some times before that our society is not collapsing. He argued that it already collapsed some 40 or 50 years ago, stating that we just don't know about it. He had a good chance to be right but that doesn't mean the end. There is a good chance that we will go for a new start but it might be good not to wait too long. It's nice to finance the banks but he might be wiser to finance "Joe the Plumber" to put it as your candidates did. I would think that we baddly need some Openheimer, Einstein, Ferdinand Porsche, Clement Ader, Wrights brothers...


So you are saying that we as a society, I mean most of the world at least are stagnating, standing still and in some cases slipping backwards instead of moving ahead ceatively. Hmmm, yeah, I will beleive that! Then again toss in bueracracy and that stifles everything, but then again with finite resources how do you determine who gets what?

As for dreams of Mars and such, yes Iwas promised a mansion on the moon by the time I grew up! That missions to Mars and Jupiter would be as common as driving to grandmothers house for Sunday Dinner!!!!

As for space exploration. NASA is strange, you know they will be retiring the Space Shuttle fairly soon. They are already working on a new reentry orbiter. From some of the designs it is supposed to just fly rather than blast off like the traditional rocketships.

And these is/was some talk of returning to the moon.

Plus, we have had a couple vehicles land on Mars and they lasted much longer than their intended lifespan. And they did find signs of water! And those two were within the last year to 18 months.

And another lander went to one of the other planets, Mercury or Jupiter, I forget, maybe it was Saturn? That was about six months ago as well.

However, you are talking about a what, 50 or 60 year period in time which is really just a blink of the eye in comparison to time of man and even less when compared to times beginings. So eh, no biggie.

I mean think of this, how long did it take for something of metal to catch on and spread throughout mankind?

[Mohoender]

Jest

I agree and, of course, you right about the lifetime. However the previous bursting period was no more than about 100 years, 150 at most (not much more then).

Every society goes from bursting to slow moving period from time to time and as comm is faster these periods might get shorter. Usually, it ends up with hard political changes (often peaceful).

No really big deal in fact and also that is the positive point with crisis. They force governments and people to react out of their small comfy habits. As you kept saying, people don't like changing, but time of changes are not always negatives. As I said I'm a pragmatic idealist. I like dreaming but I know I'm living in a real world. The only thing is that I'm not averse to change.

[Targan]

I have to disagree with the suggestion that deep space exploration has ceased. Yes it has been decades since the launch of probes designed to leave our solar system but with the advances made in areas such as radio interferometry and aperture synthesis, the commissioning of near earth orbit telescopes operating on various wavelengths and even techniques such as using black holes as telescopes by taking advantage of gravitational lensing, astronomers have now been able to look so far back into our universe's past that they are nearing the actual limit. This is because the early universe, prior to the birth of the first stars, was so compact and hyper-dense in energy that it is not actually possible to look at what was going on inside.

Being able to perceive the earliest possible echoes of our primordial universe is, IMO, pretty darn impressive.

[Targan]

I mean think of this, how long did it take for something of metal to catch on and spread throughout mankind?
I suspect even today there are still a few isolated tribal peoples who have not yet encountered (or are yet to start using) metal implements. In the deepest parts of the Amazon for instance. Even here in Australia there are still a few desert dwelling Aborigines who can remember encountering white people for the first time and thinking they were spirits or monsters of some kind.

[Mohoender]

I have to disagree with the suggestion that deep space exploration has ceased. Yes it has been decades since the launch of probes designed to leave our solar system but with the advances made in areas such as radio interferometry and aperture synthesis, the commissioning of near earth orbit telescopes operating on various wavelengths and even techniques such as using black holes as telescopes by taking advantage of gravitational lensing, atronomers have now been able to look so far back into our universe's past that they are nearing the actual limit. This is because the early universe, prior to the birth of the first stars, was so compact and hyper-dense in energy that it is not actually possible to look at what was going on inside.

Being able to perceive the earliest possible echoes of our primordial universe is, IMO, pretty darn impressive.

You right Targan but I found it too late to take that one out :o

[kato13]

I suspect even today there are still a few isolated tribal peoples who have not yet encountered (or are yet to start using) metal implements.

Or perhaps glass ones. Just a recommendation that everyone here should see the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy" if they have not.

[Marc]

I have to disagree with the suggestion that deep space exploration has ceased.


I think that one of the things that Mohoender is trying to say is we are not taking risks. Of course the science advances. And of course, a lot of our knowledge is based on previous advances. We are able to see more far away because we are standing over the shoulders of all the previous generations before us. After all, it's the history of human civilization since the invention of the alphabet. But we are not taking risks. A pair of months ago, in a Catalan radio program, I had the opportunity to listen the words of U.S. president John F. Kennedy related to the conquest of the moon. "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." (Google, o course ;). Even an European like me, 40 years after they were pronounced, can grasp the tremendously power and self-confidence emanated from these words. Please, understand that I'm not talking about politics, but, could you imagine the same illusion, self-confidence, ambition and innocence in the current US president or in the current European Union?
40 years ago!!! And there are not any nation in Earth with a permanent base in the moon!!! Be proud Americans, because the first step of Neil Armstrong deserves to be written in gold letters in the history of mankind. I have the illusion to see the live show of the first human step in Mars... well, I'm still young...:D

Please, don't misinterpret my words. Of course, science advances. But it's necessary to offer to the people ambition, self-confidence, illusion and an understandable project to support. An, once this support is gained, a nation (or a group of nations) can assume the risk. I would wish that, as 40 years ago, the tangible scientific gains could be part of a political program. We have discover a new micro-planet, we have superb photographs of Mercury surface...And of course these are important goals, but do you imagine :"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of discovering if water is present in Mars" ? A little disappointing...

And I'm not talking only about the magnitude of the goal that could be achieved in future investigations. I'm talking to explain that in a understandable way. The CERN experiments, per example. They are expanding the forntiers of the known physics. Is there any way to explain it to the general public? Any way to transmit the illusion and the motivation of the scientists who are working in it? Sure, there must be some way. After all people was sensible of all the apocalyptic messages about it.

Mmmm... In threads like that I would wish to be more fluent with my English :o

[Nowhere Man 1966]

But, two cars is the norm here, at least in the bedroom communities of California. And as I said we do not have a mass transit system worth a damn. The bottom line, alot of people have a commute of 40 plus miles to work each way. For me, a 30 to 40 minute commute is pretty good, and that is the case for most people in my city.

I think we differ from Europe in that way, the towns in Europe are al ot closer, you can walk, bike or take a bus between them easily. We are more spread out here and you can also include Canada and even Australia. I remember a joke that "in Europe, towns are two kilotons apart, in the U.S., they are more like 200 kilotons apart." Mass transit in this country can only do so much. Heck, where I live, a car is required survival equipment. When I was 16 and a half, I got my first car from my father, he was drunk when he bought a Caddy so he "had an extra car laying around." So I got a 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix. Miss that car, velor seats, AM/FM/8-Track. That car allowed me to do after school activities. I've been driving 25 years tomorrow as well.

Like it or not, we are married to the car.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

But oil is a finite resource. Why is it okay for one nation that just happens to have huge wealth at this point along the human timeline to use up the vast majority of the world's oil all by its self when it could use it much less quickly by adopting more fuel efficient vehicles or, even better, spend some of that vast wealth on developing engines that run on other fuel sources?

Apologies again for any offence but "we have a free market economy so it is fair and reasonable for anyone with sufficient money to drive whatever they like and burn as much fuel as they like" strikes me as greedy and, dare I say it, ignorant. One day, hopefully, currently underdeveloped countries will become developed countries and will need raw materials and things like crude oil and they'll look around and realise that in the decades and centuries before the countries that became developed and rich first used everything up. And used up the resources in an incredibly wasteful way which just adds insult to injury. As a person living in a rich western country I feel very guilty about these things. We tend not to care about those that will come after us and especially seem not to care about those who will come after us who are not part of our own nation or culture.

OK, I'm not trying to be mean, adversarial or whatever. I know there are times we've debated before. I used to worry about these things all the time myself and then after a lot of thoughts, well, this is my take.

Well, then the free market will switch to alternate means of fuels as time goes on, most likely fuels that can be put in current engines with little or no modification. I don't think the oil situation is as bad as they say, yes, it is finite, but then again, if you believe in the closed Universe, we have a finite material in the Universe too. I do lean towards the theory that oil is made by some process in the Earth itself, I know in the 1970's a Soviet scientist put forth the idea, separate from the organic theory that we've been taught. Sure oil is formed that way too but there could be other ways too. There are lots of tapped oil oil fields that have oil again. There are many oil fields that were like that here in Pennsylvania and if oil reaches a certain price, they will be put into use again.

Time for Dr. Chuck, the armchair psychologist, heel philosopher and working class Pittsburgh Hunky.

I consider myself a "1970's era laid back guy."

I hate all this talk of guilt. We have to live in the world of the now. There are some things I have to leave to God and His will. I have to learn that sometimes it is better to let go. Anyways, why worry, I have enough problems as it is, paying bills, trying to get by. Your stomach churns, you burp and fart and people yell at you. No wonder we have a demand for acid reflux drugs.

I don't deny we have problems, some we have solutions for like atomic power and the use of butenol and clean coal. We have done much to make things better in the world, even by the 1950's, here in Pittsburgh, the air was cleaner at that time than it was in the 1930's. I've heard it all, "we will be dead by 1985, we will be dead by 2000" and so on. I'm still here and things are OK. Science will march on and there will be answers to other problems. We have too much finger pointing and worry out there. It ain't worth it to fight the current in the river all the time and "go with the flow."

John Lennon had a 1966 song with The Beatles called "Tomorrow Never Knows," taken from the Tibetan Book of the Dead. As the song goes, "turn off you mind, relax and float downstream." Man, I'm starting to sound like Dr. Timothy Leary, I'm sure God will take a few points from me acting out of character. ;) I still like the Zen-like quality.

If you want to make it simpler, I like the 1970 song from "Wet Willie" called "Keep on Smilin'" or more recently, Bobby McFerrin's, "Don't Worry, Be Happy," from 1988. I think I'll adopt "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as my song.

We got to get over this guilt and take stock in the good things we have. It ain't healthy. I know with my recent loss of my kitty, Pixie, I wonder if I could do things different and I start to feel guilty. Then I do realize I cannot go back and replay things, it was just her time to go with God. I know she knows we did all we could for her and she still loves me from Heaven.

I guess I just get tired of everyone pointing fingers at people saying they need to feel guilty living in a rich country, White-Man's guilt, guilty at having a good paying job, eating too much, and so on. We have to get over that psychological hangup.

Sorry for the deep topic, but man, it had to be said.

Dr. Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

The fuel cell. Particularly the ones that run on hydrocarbons. They are the way of the future.

Agreed, as time goes on and they become more economic, we will see them. Plus we can use the existing fuel system or bio-fuels.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

There is always a reason to hope that alternate fuels like vegetable oils etc will win the day and become prevalent -meaning that a new economy based on the supply of such oil could become big.Some parts of the world already run vehicles on alcohol and vegetable oil etc .But in the end I take my marxist view of the historic process over the more cheery " it will all be alright in the end "..

all in my humble opinion of course

I don't think the scarcity of resources are as bad as some say although I think more of the problem lies with the economic system, distribution and more sources for products from other nations along with cheap labor. I've touched on this before but like you, "it will be alright in the end" although it is more of a God and religious view with me. I guess deep down inside, I'm the resident "Holy Roller." :D

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

HQ

I kind of agree with you and my problem is: if someone can site me an invention that was made over the past 60 years, I'll be happy to know. I'm not talking of improvement but of pure inventions (inventions that have an impact also such as TV, car, radio, aircrafts, fuel engine...). As far as I know all that we have today was invented at least 60 years + ago and that might bring us to the point that you gave about older societies. Aren't we slowing down, making the crisis perfectly normal? When I studied in the U.S. in the 1990's, I found an impressive and rich society; when I visited in the 2000's I found a country getting poorer and fast (not impressed anymore); a country that had developped some aspects that I somewhat could compare to Brazil. Today, my computer, car... are much more modern than the ones own by my U.S. friends unless they have enough money to buy foreign goods. Don't worry we are following the same path: over the past year France got less unemployed but the percentage of poor jumped from 11% to 13%. In the meantime, India got 22% more millionaires.

Then, I agree about hoping for some changes just to start the engine again. I don't know what you mean by economics but currently I found that our societies have gone for profits only, leaving benefits behind. Profit, from my point of view, is only the fuel and we forgot putting it in the engine. I have more respect for Howard Hugues when he pursues his crazy dreams or for Bill Gates when he gives 500 million$ for AIDS than for the guy currently leading Mycrosoft or IBM (I forgot which one) when he buys a third huge yacht. I'm all in support of life pleasure but when it finally goes to only that, I'm not sure we are going somewhere.

However, I agree with you about the idea that "everything will be fine at the end". Strangely I consider a possible general nuclear burst to be part of the fine end. Not one I'm hoping for so, therefore, If we could avoid that one, I'll be more than happy.:D

Good points. Yeah, you have an interesting thought there. I use a computer from 1999, my cars are from 1994 and 1977 (got to make that one roadworthy), my TV is from 1982. I guess as long as I can surf the internet and play Diablo, drive around and watch "Airwolf," I'm alright with that. :D

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Jest

I agree and, of course, you right about the lifetime. However the previous bursting period was no more than about 100 years, 150 at most (not much more then).

Every society goes from bursting to slow moving period from time to time and as comm is faster these periods might get shorter. Usually, it ends up with hard political changes (often peaceful).

No really big deal in fact and also that is the positive point with crisis. They force governments and people to react out of their small comfy habits. As you kept saying, people don't like changing, but time of changes are not always negatives. As I said I'm a pragmatic idealist. I like dreaming but I know I'm living in a real world. The only thing is that I'm not averse to change.

I have a belief, well I share it with Toynbee, that Empires last 200 years before they crash, shrink, whatever. If you take the British Empire, the defeat of France (what is the French view on this, I'm interested) in the Seven Years War in 1763 could have been the big accomplishment that made Britain an Empire.

BTW, here in the U.S., we call the Seven Years War, "The French and Indian War." I live in the area where the whole war started between George Washington fighting the French at Ft. Duquesne and it spread all over the world. In fact, it was truly the "first world war."

Well if you fast forward 200 years, you get 1963, at that time, decolonization of the British Empire, and others, was well underway. I often said that the "War of 1812" established the United States as a power to stand alone. Again take 200 years, you get 2012, well we are almost there and some say we are in decline. I hope now, but I do say we have more competition in the world.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I think that one of the things that Mohoender is trying to say is we are not taking risks. Of course the science advances. And of course, a lot of our knowledge is based on previous advances. We are able to see more far away because we are standing over the shoulders of all the previous generations before us. After all, it's the history of human civilization since the invention of the alphabet. But we are not taking risks. A pair of months ago, in a Catalan radio program, I had the opportunity to listen the words of U.S. president John F. Kennedy related to the conquest of the moon. "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." (Google, o course ;). Even an European like me, 40 years after they were pronounced, can grasp the tremendously power and self-confidence emanated from these words. Please, understand that I'm not talking about politics, but, could you imagine the same illusion, self-confidence, ambition and innocence in the current US president or in the current European Union?
40 years ago!!! And there are not any nation in Earth with a permanent base in the moon!!! Be proud Americans, because the first step of Neil Armstrong deserves to be written in gold letters in the history of mankind. I have the illusion to see the live show of the first human step in Mars... well, I'm still young...:D

Please, don't misinterpret my words. Of course, science advances. But it's necessary to offer to the people ambition, self-confidence, illusion and an understandable project to support. An, once this support is gained, a nation (or a group of nations) can assume the risk. I would wish that, as 40 years ago, the tangible scientific gains could be part of a political program. We have discover a new micro-planet, we have superb photographs of Mercury surface...And of course these are important goals, but do you imagine :"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of discovering if water is present in Mars" ? A little disappointing...

And I'm not talking only about the magnitude of the goal that could be achieved in future investigations. I'm talking to explain that in a understandable way. The CERN experiments, per example. They are expanding the forntiers of the known physics. Is there any way to explain it to the general public? Any way to transmit the illusion and the motivation of the scientists who are working in it? Sure, there must be some way. After all people was sensible of all the apocalyptic messages about it.

Mmmm... In threads like that I would wish to be more fluent with my English :o

Hmmm, yeah, we achieved a lot more in the 1960s with space travel and did it all with discrete components like transistors and early integrated circuit chips. Had World War II not happened and/or the Cold War, we'd be lucky to be on the Moon by now. I always thought as an armchair alternate historian, had Gavilro Princip (the true man of the 20th Century, look what he caused) messed up and as long as no one else took his place, World War I might have not happened and we'd be living in a much different world now. I would say the world of 2000-2010 would probably resemble around 1970 or so.

I was 3 when we landed on the Moon. I was hoping we'd be on Mars by the 1980's. I know in a technical sense, if we really, really, really, really had to, the technology to go to Mars was achieved by the late 1960's. As to Moon flight, if they had the rocket thrust needed, it could have been done as early as the 1930's. It seems like you need the will and the money but I think the will is more important. If you have that, you can, well most of the time, find the money. The Cold War gave us that in the 1960's.

I know we are retiring the space shuttle and going back to a space capsule, it is almost like the old Apollo.

CERN is pretty interesting but it does not have the visibility a space programs has.

If anyone remembers the old 1990's cartoon series, "The Tick," he had an interest take on this. In the episode, "Grandpa Wore Tights," it showed one of the villains, "The Terror," in 1948 giving Joe Stalin "atomic robot zombie men." The question was asked, "how did they do that," and the Tick said, "back then, science worked in broad strokes, today it's all molecule, molecule, molecule."

Chuck M.

Chuck M.

[Mohoender]

If you take the British Empire, the defeat of France (what is the French view on this, I'm interested) in the Seven Years War in 1763 could have been the big accomplishment that made Britain an Empire.

BTW, here in the U.S., we call the Seven Years War, "The French and Indian War." I live in the area where the whole war started between George Washington fighting the French at Ft. Duquesne and it spread all over the world. In fact, it was truly the "first world war."


Chuck M.

I'm not really good about that matter as I don't like that period. 18th century is the century I like the least. The only thing I can say would be that this war is the result of a long period of turmoil that started with Louis XIV. Most people, will tell you that he was a great king, but I don't agree. He made only wars, won many of them, never finished a lot of others and drove the country to Banckrupcy.

The end of it was probably the French revolution and the Napoleonic era. Again I don't like the guy as I prefer Napoleon III.

That brings me to another thing. I'll disagree with you when you seem to imply that wars make things go faster. Peace and peace only do that. War has only one goal: destruction and destruction alone. I won't argue anymore on that, however, as there is no way to change my view on this.:D

Don't try to argue, you'll waste your time, but I had to say it.;)

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I'm not really good about that matter as I don't like that period. 18th century is the century I like the least. The only thing I can say would be that this war is the result of a long period of turmoil that started with Louis XIV. Most people, will tell you that he was a great king, but I don't agree. He made only wars, won many of them, never finished a lot of others and drove the country to Banckrupcy.

The end of it was probably the French revolution and the Napoleonic era. Again I don't like the guy as I prefer Napoleon III.

That brings me to another thing. I'll disagree with you when you seem to imply that wars make things go faster. Peace and peace only do that. War has only one goal: destruction and destruction alone. I won't argue anymore on that, however, as there is no way to change my view on this.:D

Don't try to argue, you'll waste your time, but I had to say it.;)

Well, I'd like to add that World War II did make some things develop faster, television for one. Although television was technically feasible before World War II, I think the war did accelerate the use of UHF radio waves (more TV channels), microwave communications and smaller vacuum tubes. Same with computers, but that's my take.

[jester]

Well, I'd like to add that World War II did make some things develop faster, television for one. Although television was technically feasible before World War II, I think the war did accelerate the use of UHF radio waves (more TV channels), microwave communications and smaller vacuum tubes. Same with computers, but that's my take.


WWII had radio guidance systems, the Germans had the first video guided missiles they used for anti ship purpioses. Wire guided, night vission, guidance systems for rockets and missiles.

Computers were first developed as well.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

WWII had radio guidance systems, the Germans had the first video guided missiles they used for anti ship purpioses. Wire guided, night vission, guidance systems for rockets and missiles.

Computers were first developed as well.

True and also High Definition TV was developed then, IIRC, it was developed during World War II in Vichy France, Rene Barthelemy came up with a 1050 line system and the Germans basically pirated it. I know after the war, France had a system of 819 lines, it was black and white but very high definition for it's time. I'm also amazed they developed vacuum tubes so small, they had them in artillery shells as a part of a "radar" system to explode and make schrapnel for anti-aircraft or ship use.

Here is a link on the High Def TV: http://www.earlytelevision.org/raf.html

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I'm not really good about that matter as I don't like that period. 18th century is the century I like the least. The only thing I can say would be that this war is the result of a long period of turmoil that started with Louis XIV. Most people, will tell you that he was a great king, but I don't agree. He made only wars, won many of them, never finished a lot of others and drove the country to Banckrupcy.

The end of it was probably the French revolution and the Napoleonic era. Again I don't like the guy as I prefer Napoleon III.

I know that continued with King Louis XV as well, I know when the French were screaming for reinforcements in the French and Indian War (Seven Years War), the middlemen took their cuts and this really hurt the French against the British. Meanwhile, you had the American Indians who generally sided with the French but there were times they played the French against the British and vice versa. I know King George III of Britain did his share to bankrupt England, this was a help to the American Colonists in the revolution (although France, Spain and to a lesser extent, Poland helped too), but England was bleeding money so that helped usher the victory in the American's favor.

I think here in the U.S., we are facing similar problems economically, IIRC, you made the point that it seem the U.S. is starting to slip a bit with people having older cars and computers and so on, I know the economic problems we are having are contributing into that. A lot of people don't buy cars every 2 to 4 years like they used to, but keep them longer. My Explorer is 14 years old, almost 15 and if I get my Mercury Cougar on the road again, that car will be 31/32 years old. I know people in this area who still drive 30 and 40+ year old cars. I know an amateur radio operator who bought an AMC (aka Nash) Ambassador in 1964 and he still drive it to this day. He is in his mid 90's and he drives and talks on the radio at the same time. Around here, I still see a guy driving a 1962 Mercury and another with a 1971 Ford. Cars from the 1980's are still common.

Chuck M.

[Mohoender]

About TV, I disagree strongly. It was not developped at all during WWII. It was developped in the 1920's and 1930's. Actually WWII never accelerated its developement, it delayed it. TV had been available to the public in the early 1950's but without the war it would certainly have been available in the early 1940's (for France).

Vichy France has nothing to do with it (actually you had no TV under Vichy). As of June 1940 all the french national press, TV and Radios were taken over by Germany. The only press publication allowed by Germany was "l'Humanité" (communist) that was printed up to 1941. Not surprising when you recall that USSR was allied to Germany and that the French communist party was instructed, by Moscow, to help the German in all their military efforts. If you want to know more about this ask U.S. historians they are good and very knowledgeable about that.

About TV, it was emiting from Paris, under strict German regulation (actually it was turned off until 1943). However, the developement was done under the 3rd Republic with a regular program as early as 1937 (100 TV in Paris). A program was on the air every evening between 20pm and 21pm (about). It was slowed down a lot as a result of the war.

In the US, General Electric started with it in 1928. 11 years before the war (First politician on TV in 1928). The admited date for its invention is around the mid-1920's (1924 or 1923) in the U.S.. By the way TV was invented by Russians who emigrated to the U.S. after the soviet revolution.:D

If you look closely at everything else you might find the same, Wars delay things except, of course, when the thing is a military application. Germany sent a missile to lower space in 1942 as they wanted such device to deliver an atomic bomb to New York and Washington in 1945 (U.S. have been very good and a bit lucky on that one).:)

[Mohoender]

Good points. Yeah, you have an interesting thought there. I use a computer from 1999, my cars are from 1994 and 1977 (got to make that one roadworthy), my TV is from 1982. I guess as long as I can surf the internet and play Diablo, drive around and watch "Airwolf," I'm alright with that. :D

Chuck M.

I think you are right to be alright with that. People should buy as they please. What make me worry a little more, however, is the access to technology or goods. A year ago, a friend of mine was living in California using a Mac computer. As she needed some upgrade, she couldn't find it in the U.S. and was forced to order it from Hong Kong. That upgrade was not even the one from the last generation.

When I was visiting in 2003 I looked for an USB key. Everything I found was half as good as what we consider here as basic. When I ask the guy in the wide computer shop his answer was: "We don't make this" or something like. When, I was studying in the U.S. in the 1990's I used to delay some purchase as I knew I could find better stuff in U.S.. It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. When I finally got back to France, I had a full suitcase of stereo material that I smuggled through the border.:D. Next time I'll go to U.S. I'm thinking about doing it the other way around.:p

Last year I used to play "Starwars" on the internet. I tried to avoid playing with Americans. They were nice and helpful people but my computer could feel the jetlag. I could go down one floor, get a beer and their computers were still loading their character. Strangely, the company running the game was next door (almost) to their place. I finally asked. All were using computers I put in the trash can about 6 or 7 years ago. One was using a brand new computer, however, he was an expatriate living in Germany and was amazed by the quality of computer stuff that you could find there for the same price than in U.S.

Don't take me wrong we are not doing that all better. For my wife hobby, she is ordering in the U.S.A. what was built here in france, 100 miles from our place. That company just went banckrupt and I don't have to wonder why.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

About TV, I disagree strongly. It was not developped at all during WWII. It was developped in the 1920's and 1930's. Actually WWII never accelerated its developement, it delayed it. TV had been available to the public in the early 1950's but without the war it would certainly have been available in the early 1940's (for France).

Vichy France has nothing to do with it (actually you had no TV under Vichy). As of June 1940 all the french national press, TV and Radios were taken over by Germany. The only press publication allowed by Germany was "l'Humanité" (communist) that was printed up to 1941. Not surprising when you recall that USSR was allied to Germany and that the French communist party was instructed, by Moscow, to help the German in all their military efforts. If you want to know more about this ask U.S. historians they are good and very knowledgeable about that.

About TV, it was emiting from Paris, under strict German regulation (actually it was turned off until 1943). However, the developement was done under the 3rd Republic with a regular program as early as 1937 (100 TV in Paris). A program was on the air every evening between 20pm and 21pm (about). It was slowed down a lot as a result of the war.

In the US, General Electric started with it in 1928. 11 years before the war (First politician on TV in 1928). The admited date for its invention is around the mid-1920's (1924 or 1923) in the U.S.. By the way TV was invented by Russians who emigrated to the U.S. after the soviet revolution.:D

If you look closely at everything else you might find the same, Wars delay things except, of course, when the thing is a military application. Germany sent a missile to lower space in 1942 as they wanted such device to deliver an atomic bomb to New York and Washington in 1945 (U.S. have been very good and a bit lucky on that one).:)

I think the invention of TV is really muddled, I think about the Russian who came to the U.S., you're talking about Vladimir Zworkin. He worked for Westinghouse briefly, here in Pittsburgh I think, but went to RCA to work for David Sarnoff of RCA/NBC fame. There are many here, and I'm one of them, where we see that a guy named Philo T. Farnsworth actually invented the modern electronic TV system and Zworkin and Sarnoff "ripped off" the idea after Farnsworth did the work in the 1920's. David Sarnoff, well he does deserve some credit where it is due, but on the inventions, there are many who see him as a thief.

There is a book and a documentary by Ken Burns that was done in 1992 about the development of radio centralized on three men, Lee Deforest, David Sarnoff and Edwin Howard Armstrong. Armstrong had a lot of patents from a regenerative radio receiver, to superhetrodyne, to FM radio. Armstrong did research on FM radio with the aid of Sarnoff until Sarnoff didn't need him anymore and booted him out of the Empire State Building, then and now, the main TV/radio broadcast center for New York City. Sarnoff made FM radios and claimed they were different than Armstrong but this was not true and it was settled in court, some cases were started in the 1930's and not settled until as late as 1980.

Armstrong went on his own and build an FM tower across the Hudson in Alpine, New Jersey just so Sarnoff could see it and to "stick it to him." Evenutally, beaten down, Armstrong committed suicide in 1954 but in a way, he did have the last laugh. When 9/11 happened in 2001, the World Trade Center was home to many of New York City's radio and TV transmitters. When they fell, some stations did have backups in the old Empire State building but for some who didn't, they had to use Armstrong's Tower as a backup transmitting site and this included WNBC, the flagship station and first TV station David Sarnoff founded in 1941. Sarnoff's station was using Armstrong's tower, it was so ironic since the two men were at each other's throats. The only person laughing on 9/11 was Armstrong from the grave it seems due to that irony.

So the story is really murky on TV and radio and it is often said that there is really no true one inventor.

Back to the subject, I know the UK had TV as well from 1936, the Nazis had it and of course the French and Italians. We were kind of behind in the U.S., maybe if the war didn't happen, TV could have come about sooner although maybe a few things might have taken longer. The bad thing though is that major wars do take it's toll on consumer goods and this really delayed TV in many places. Well, no TV in Vichy France but still that did not stop science, the again for war purposes.

I know TV collectors in Europe do have quite a few sets from pre-World War II, here in the U.S., they existed too but are more rare. We did have a few TV station going during the war, but they were in New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and Schenectany, NY. When the Japanese were about to surrender but they didn't yet, a station in Washington, D.C., jumped the gun and put "War Is Over" on the TV screen and the Navy had to investigate that.

Chuck M.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I think you are right to be alright with that. People should buy as they please. What make me worry a little more, however, is the access to technology or goods. A year ago, a friend of mine was living in California using a Mac computer. As she needed some upgrade, she couldn't find it in the U.S. and was forced to order it from Hong Kong. That upgrade was not even the one from the last generation.

When I was visiting in 2003 I looked for an USB key. Everything I found was half as good as what we consider here as basic. When I ask the guy in the wide computer shop his answer was: "We don't make this" or something like. When, I was studying in the U.S. in the 1990's I used to delay some purchase as I knew I could find better stuff in U.S.. It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. When I finally got back to France, I had a full suitcase of stereo material that I smuggled through the border.:D. Next time I'll go to U.S. I'm thinking about doing it the other way around.:p

Last year I used to play "Starwars" on the internet. I tried to avoid playing with Americans. They were nice and helpful people but my computer could feel the jetlag. I could go down one floor, get a beer and their computers were still loading their character. Strangely, the company running the game was next door (almost) to their place. I finally asked. All were using computers I put in the trash can about 6 or 7 years ago. One was using a brand new computer, however, he was an expatriate living in Germany and was amazed by the quality of computer stuff that you could find there for the same price than in U.S.

Don't take me wrong we are not doing that all better. For my wife hobby, she is ordering in the U.S.A. what was built here in france, 100 miles from our place. That company just went banckrupt and I don't have to wonder why.

Yeah, I think over time, we are going to have to get used to the old adage my parents and grandparents learned during the Depression and World War II. Well, my parents don't remember much of the Depression but they do remember WWII. "Use it up, wear it out, make do or do without." Well if you truly need something, when it needs replaced, some buy used stuff. My friend bought a car for $750 for example. I'm seeing a lot of that here, many people go to thrift stores as well like Goodwill and St. Vincent du Paul. If I had room, I saw a 1969 RCA color console TV I would have loved to snag. :D Thrift stores are doing a good business as money becomes tight.

A little update, my 1999 computer was giving me fits and I have to find out why so I went back to my old one, a 1998 Gateway Pentium II, 266 MHz, I'm using it now. It also runs better too.

Chuck M.

[Marc]

Ok! Returning to the economic crisis, here you have a good explanation about the subrimes. :) All your doubts will disappear.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x684wa_the-last-laugh-george-parr-subprime_fun

[Mohoender]

Chuck

About TV I was about sure for the date. I really didn't care about who invented it but found the idea funny and possibly true. After all Sikorsky was working for the Tsar before going to US.

However, it didn't seem to me that U.S. was behind. Actually I thought you were a little bit ahead.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Chuck

About TV I was about sure for the date. I really didn't care about who invented it but found the idea funny and possibly true. After all Sikorsky was working for the Tsar before going to US.

However, it didn't seem to me that U.S. was behind. Actually I thought you were a little bit ahead.

Yeah, it took us a while to have TV become popular, it had to wait until after World War II. Igor Sikorsky, my father met him once, I think he was in the Army then. He was a photographer in the Army and afterwards.

Chuck M.

[Mohoender]

Yeah, it took us a while to have TV become popular, it had to wait until after World War II. Igor Sikorsky, my father met him once, I think he was in the Army then. He was a photographer in the Army and afterwards.

Chuck M.

I was not thinking about TV being popular. That takes time everywhere. As I know my grand father was among the first to get a TV in Belgium and that was 1952 (I think). I haven't checked about the date recently, I think that was the year for the first TV program in Belgium.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

I was not thinking about TV being popular. That takes time everywhere. As I know my grand father was among the first to get a TV in Belgium and that was 1952 (I think). I haven't checked about the date recently, I think that was the year for the first TV program in Belgium.

I remember my mother's family had the first TV on the block in 1948. There was only one channel here in Pittsburgh although many shortwave radio and amateur radio enthusiasts did construct antennas so they can receive the station from Johnstown, PA (a small, coal mining and steel town to the east in the mountains) that actually had TV before Pittsburgh. Later on, there were station in Wheeling, West Virginia, Steubenville and Youngstown, Ohio and Newcastle, PA but the last one went dark quick. Everyone flocked to my mother's house to watch TV back then.

Chuck M.

[headquarters]

I remember my mother's family had the first TV on the block in 1948. There was only one channel here in Pittsburgh although many shortwave radio and amateur radio enthusiasts did construct antennas so they can receive the station from Johnstown, PA (a small, coal mining and steel town to the east in the mountains) that actually had TV before Pittsburgh. Later on, there were station in Wheeling, West Virginia, Steubenville and Youngstown, Ohio and Newcastle, PA but the last one went dark quick. Everyone flocked to my mother's house to watch TV back then.

Chuck M.
TV industry and consumer habits from the early days are fascinating I find -now that TV is the many headed corporate behemoths you have today .I like the idea of small stations "flying by the seat of their pants " so to say .

My campaign had a tv -channel in it a while back - the partys official propaganda instrument - PAC-TV .Many a surviving celebrity or b or c celebrity or d even found them selves coerced into appearing as anchor men,supporters etc .All of us enjoyed it whenever the party got down to do some good ole`fashion bullshitting on TV to keep the populace at bay and staining the enemies rep.Of course re-runs were the staple ,but they did make news programs and a soap (!) -the widely popular
"UNDER A BURING SUN" - a current affairs inspired ,sexy tv drama about three families and their struggles in love and business amidts the torrenst of their time . (hehe)

[ChalkLine]

[Moved from the internment camp thread by request]

The trouble with all this is that 'communist' doesn't equal 'subversive'.

Subversives are people with an affiliation to another country, where communists have a preference for another government system. It doesn't imply they want another country installing that system by nuclear war.

Also, communism is a huge field of thought. Trotskyites don't like Stalinists. Socialists don't like Communists. No one likes Totalitarians, especially socialists from a democratic country. In fact, the commies in the US are more likely to fight the invaders than anyone else, as they're witnessing an invasion of what they see as a perversion of their preferred system.

Finally, democracy is usually an important part of socialism or communism (I bet you didn't know that), and the Stalinist/Totalitarian system implied by the T2K (admittedly simplistic) canon is going to be hated by all the US socialists and communists.

Now, Russians, they'd be interned. There wasn't many Russians in the US before the war though, and those that were were political emigres; bigger haters of the USSR than anyone else.

[Mohoender]

Finally, democracy is usually an important part of socialism or communism (I bet you didn't know that), and the Stalinist/Totalitarian system implied by the T2K (admittedly simplistic) canon is going to be hated by all the US socialists and communists.



As another Historian, I think I understand what you are heading at. However, I'm not sure that the communism you are talking about ever existed in Russia. Except may be during the true Russian revolution of 1917, the one in the Spring, not the one in october, the one that put the Menchevik in power. What followed was only a successful coup initiated by the Bolchevik led by Lenin. It also represented the death of both communism and democracy in Russia. I'll also add one thing: Stalinism was the rightful heir of Leninism in its totalitarian understanding of the society.

Of course again this is an opinion only.:) By the way, kato can you move this to the political thread where it will be more in its right place? Another opinion.:D

[Graebarde]

[Moved from the internment camp thread by request]

Now, Russians, they'd be interned. There wasn't many Russians in the US before the war though, and those that were were political emigres; bigger haters of the USSR than anyone else.

Well it depends on the time. There is a large population in North Dakota whose ancestors came from Germany via Russia. They moved from Germany to Russia to farm for I beleive it was Catherina (sp??) in about the 1840s, then left there in for the US in 1870s. My dad's generation talked about them in WW2. Before the war they were German's and told you so, spoke a mixed dialect of Russian and German at home and around town, such as the Norsk and Swedes talked their native tounges in private conversations at the time. Well Hilter came to power and we went to war, they suddenly became RUSSIANS. Well WW2 ended and the Russians were no longer our friends, and wha-la, they were Germans again. I think the thought of what happened to the Japanese is what prompted the changes in ancestory.

But there are many Americans with Russian ancestory. Now 1st generation Russians were few I think until the wall came down, which in the case of the Twilight canon it never happened.

Grae

[Mohoender]

That remind me of myself visiting U.S. in 2003. With some people I conveniently became Belgian again.:D Hopefully, I had to do this only with one person and that prevented my fist from crushing his teeth.;)

[Targan]

I know what you mean. I'm an Australian most of the time but when the All Blacks play rugby against the Wallabies I'm a New Zealander again :)