Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom Sixkiller opined

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
David Megginson opined

snip

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Good thought, bad idea. If the state gets punitive damges, it will become
a
source of revenue. And then in the nesxt reccession the state will expand
punitive damages. Parhaps making punitive damages manditory...

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Ok, but not both at the same time .

Not only that, but then the state has an interest in civil litigation
(between private parties). It would create an overlap with criminal law.

If you think there's a lot of idiotic litigation now, just wait until the
state can go after deep pockets from two different angles.

http://www.overlawyered.com





-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

In rec.aviation.owning Colin Kingsbury wrote:
: Just a few million? With 400,000 AOPA members that ought to be easy. How
: much does a congressman go for these days, anyway?

How many of those 400,000 AOPA members are still in the land of the living?

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:52:39 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar...or, maybe 200 gallons of 100LL.

Just not *both* at the same time, eh?

Rob

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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Quite right. Mixing criminal punishment and civil retribution is a very bad
thing.
That's exactly why punitive damage as a punishment should have no business
in a civil case.

jue

Mark opined

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.

If you really want punitive damages, donate them to charity. A charity that acts
to reduce what ever "caused" the tort. Snell and AOPA air safety are good
examples.

What ever you do, do not let governments get their hands on the monies.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Two words: Seven Sixtyseven.


Are those the ones they bribed into the USAF tanker deal even though
Airbus was cheaper? That hardly counts as innovative!


Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?

--
Jim Fisher

Jim,

Allrighty, then. Try Seven Seventyseven?


Oh, the one where the finally also used fly-by-wire like Airbus after
bad-mouthing the concept for years? Innovation?

This is fun g

Note: My comments are tongue-in-cheek.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)