Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"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.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message


American Innovation and Progress is alive and well, thank you.

That may be true, but I think the point of the article is that the pace of
innovation and progress would be much greater without the regulatory and
litigious barriers that have been erected since the Wrights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

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

But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.


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.

R. Hubbell


--
Jim Fisher

"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.

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

"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).

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:52 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:


"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.


Until you know the differences between progress and innovation you won't
make any sense.




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.


Pick any monopoly.



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

Absolutely not.

you keep referring to?


Pick any monopoly and what I said applies.


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...


What about them stifled innovation? I think you don't know the difference
between innovation and progress. They don't move hand-in-hand.



But slow progress fortunately doesn't slow innovation.

Nice contradiction there.


Describe how that's a contradiction.

Re-read your own words.

You just don't know the difference between progress and innovation.
They're not the same. Look it up.


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


Well, in your own words; bullsquat.

Look up the definitions.




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


Where's the dollar? Where's the discourse? I guess you're done.
When the name calling starts then that means you've run out of arguments.


R. Hubbell

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ...

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.

The point of the article was lost on me.


Other countries, notably China, North Korea, Japan, and
Ireland have built industries that thrive on production of items
either too expensive to make in North America because we demanded way
too much money to work in the factories, or because everyone here is
too scared to make something that might result in lawsuits by stupid
people who think there should be no risk in risky recreation. If we do
build them we have to charge exorbitant prices to cover liability
insurance against such litigation.
It's not that American (or Canadian, for me) innovation is dead.
It's that the process of getting good ideas into the hands of the
people is so difficult, cumbersome, and risky. In Canada the
government fee for the certification of a new aircraft design starts
at something like $250,000 for a light airplane. How many people are
going to look at that and decide to certify it in Eastern Europe or
South Korea? Transferability of the certification is much simpler than
trying to satisfy and pay, pay, pay. Anything built here is subject to
easy litigation. Anything built here is subject to wages of $30 an
hour and a strike every couple of years. Any profits made here are
taxed heavily.
How many machine tool factories are in North America anymore? How
many of the cars sold here were made here? Where were your sneakers
made? Your skis? Your furniture? Your bicycle? Motorbike? Tools?

Dan

Yep, you missed the point. There should be MORE people and companies - but
there are not due to collectivism and the like. (Or whatever/whomever Ayn
Rand believes is evil)


"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"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.

The point of the article was lost on me.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"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.

Really?

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.

There _are_ exceptions on the margin, no doubt.

The point of the article was lost on me.

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.