a bit of politics and history?

[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...

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

[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."

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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'Humanit" (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.

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.

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.. Next time I'll go to U.S. I'm thinking about doing it the other way around.

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.