Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.

And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher"
wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at
the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to
say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.


It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.

It's alive, but it's hardly "well".

Progress is
definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
part of slow progress.

Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been a
source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?

They can make cost of entry into markets very
high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?


But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

Nice contradiction there.



The point of the article was lost on me.

There wasn't much of a point just some emotional knee-jerk with a
lot of fluffy talk.


Here's a dollar; buy a clue.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:08:39 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher"
wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at
the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try to
say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.


It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.

It's alive, but it's hardly "well".

Innovation is doing fine. Progress is definitely hampered. But it inches
forward kicking and screaming.


Progress is
definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a big
part of slow progress.

Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been a
source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?

I don't know. Are you going to tell us? I never mixed innovation and
big corporations together.


They can make cost of entry into markets very
high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

Political clout is only a part of a monopoly.

And I have heard of the dark ages, do you have some examples of monopolitic
practices from the dark ages and how they stifled innovation?



But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

Nice contradiction there.


Describe how that's a contradiction.

Innovation and progress are not the same just in case you were thinking
they were.

R. Hubbell

"Icebound" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones,

You think so, huh?

providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

Public school graduate, right?

"Icebound" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well, I guess then everything is hunky-dorey and we can continue our
present
course. I'll keep that post of yours for your descendents.




My descendants will be perfectly happy with today's refrigerators,
aircraft, cars, Televisions, and cel-phones, providing that you
"innovate" some social structures that will prevent street crime, gang
wars, tribal wars, rape, poverty, inter-nation fences, and exorbitant
medical costs.

I hope your descendants won't be as clueless and incapable of focusing as
you are (but I imagine that's how heredity works).

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:cAxDb.15029$pY.12514@fed1read04...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:08:39 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:0bqDb.12269$pY.7976@fed1read04...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:59:35 -0600 "Jim Fisher"

wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to
which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked
at
the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes
that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and
admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress
without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

Bullsquat. This opening statement pretty much ruined the whole damn
article
for me.

American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you. Try
to
say
that paragraph up there with a straight face to anyone who works for
NASA,
Boeing, Cirrus or anyone working for Burt Rutan.


It's a lame article. I believe innovation is alive and well.

It's alive, but it's hardly "well".

Innovation is doing fine. Progress is definitely hampered. But it inches
forward kicking and screaming.

If it's crawling along (especially after what we saw in this century), it's
definitely not "doing fine". I take it you don't run a business, and
certainly aren't an entraprenueur.


Progress is
definitely slowed and there are a lot of reasons. Monopolies are a
big
part of slow progress.

Monopoloies? Who'd that be? And when has the big corporations ever been
a
source of innovation since the "Golden Age"?

I don't know. Are you going to tell us? I never mixed innovation and
big corporations together.

You tell me who the monopolies are that you referred to above.


They can make cost of entry into markets very
high thus squeezing out competition. Then they have no reason to
introduce new technologies. They can continue to charge high prices
for the things they sell even after long having paying back all R&D
costs or infrastructure costs or whatever the case.

Yes, and that comes from their political clout, which has ALWAYS siffled
innovation. Ever heard of the "Dark Ages"?

Political clout is only a part of a monopoly.

Political clout is ALL THERE IS in a monopoly! So who are the monopolies
you keep referring to?

And I have heard of the dark ages, do you have some examples of
monopolitic
practices from the dark ages and how they stifled innovation?

The guilds, mercantilism, empire building...


But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

Nice contradiction there.


Describe how that's a contradiction.

Re-read your own words.

Innovation and progress are not the same just in case you were thinking
they were.


Well, in your own words; bullsquat.


Here's another dollar; buy some more clue (and quit trying to rationalize
your post).

Jim,

Boeing,


You gotta be kidding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


Greetings,
Markus

"Markus Voget" wrote in message
...
David Megginson wrote:

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a
lesser extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor
changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do
this in Canada);

That's the way it works in Germany, too. And it strives me as much fairer.
Why on earth should a citizen have to suffer financially (and materially
as
it is) when somebody else accuses him of wrongdoing without justification?
I cannot see how this system could be invented in the first place and why
the American people have not gotten rid of it a long time ago.


The USA is the ONLY nation that uses the "each side pays their own".