ENvironmentally Friendly Inter City Aircraft powered by Fuel Cells

Recently, Bob Fry posted:

To actually solve a problem, regardless of money, takes insight and a
modicum of intelligence. As an American and engineer I'm seeing less
and less of both here, and it ****es me off. But we got about half
the country thinking our decline is caused because the other half
doesn't pray. Science? Engineering? Rational thought? That's for
the weird-sounding foreigns, 4-eyed geeks, and far-left libs. No, we
just need to return to God and Jesus and everything will be fine.

One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican "debate"
was the number of candidates that are completely clueless about what
science is and is not. At least Mitt Romney acknowledged that science and
religion are not in opposition to one another, but he then went off on a
tangent that completely failed to separate religious concepts from
learning the discipline of science. It left me with the impression that if
a Republican administration is elected from this bunch, we'll be
hopelessly bogged down in ignorance that, if nothing else, will lessen the
likelihood that their "Apollo Project" to solve our energy needs and
reduce global warming could ever become a reality. We won't accomplish
such a thing by praying for it.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican "debate"
was the number of candidates that are completely clueless about what
science is and is not.

Oh I totally agree... and so are all the democrat candidates. Most
of your politicians in Washington are totally cluless about a lot
of things, not just technology. We need some fresh meat/// people
who have held actual real jobs, or run companies.

At least Mitt Romney acknowledged that science and
religion are not in opposition to one another, but he then went off on a
tangent that completely failed to separate religious concepts from
learning the discipline of science. It left me with the impression that if
a Republican administration is elected from this bunch, we'll be
hopelessly bogged down in ignorance that, if nothing else, will lessen the
likelihood that their "Apollo Project" to solve our energy needs and
reduce global warming could ever become a reality. We won't accomplish
such a thing by praying for it.


Agreed. I see no one... from either party... who is worth voting
for. Like I said... We need some fresh meat. Fire every damn one
of 'em and start over. We certainly couldn't do any worse than
what we have now.

"kontiki" wrote in message ...


Agreed. I see no one... from either party... who is worth voting
for. Like I said... We need some fresh meat. Fire every damn one
of 'em and start over. We certainly couldn't do any worse than
what we have now.

Interesting campaign he http://payattention.org/

Recently, kontiki posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

One of the most disappointing thing about last night's Republican
"debate" was the number of candidates that are completely clueless
about what science is and is not.

Oh I totally agree... and so are all the democrat candidates. Most
of your politicians in Washington are totally cluless about a lot
of things, not just technology. We need some fresh meat/// people
who have held actual real jobs, or run companies.

Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do things
stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do things
stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.


Statistically, far more people are employed by small businesses vs.
large businesses. It may be possible that the larger the business
the more difficult it is to run effectively.

I guess you could draw the same analogy between small government vs.
large government. In any case, people who run businesses in the
private sector tend to be more accountable than people who run
government (i.e. politicians) and they tend to get less of a pass
when they screw up.

Recently, ktbr posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Considering how many companies are run, I don't think that would help
much. Take a look at the US auto industry for a hint of how to do
things stupidly. They only had a couple of decades to get a clue.


Statistically, far more people are employed by small businesses vs.
large businesses. It may be possible that the larger the business
the more difficult it is to run effectively.

Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the fact that
auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the '70s and shaped
their businesses accordingly are now the successful companies.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the fact that
auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the '70s and shaped
their businesses accordingly are now the successful companies.


Uhhh I'm not so sure I'd go that far and say they are now the most
successful companies. Since they "saw the handwriting" (I would call
more of facing the music) in the 70's as you say, Chrysler was bailed
out of bankrupcy, later General Motors stock went to junk status
over night and Ford has struggled. Plants were closed, concessions
were required of unions and quality needed upgrading to compete
with Japanese car makers (who are typically not unionized).

It would be hard to find another industry (other than the airplines)
that has struggled and suffered as much as the auto industry has
over the past 35 years. Small aviation struggled for quite a while
also in the 80's as a result of one lawsuit after another until
some protective (and very well needed) legislation was inacted.

Recently, ktbr posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Comparing apples to apples, your hypothesis wouldn't explain the
fact that auto manufacturers that saw the writing on the wall in the
'70s and shaped their businesses accordingly are now the successful
companies.


Uhhh I'm not so sure I'd go that far and say they are now the most
successful companies. Since they "saw the handwriting" (I would call
more of facing the music) in the 70's as you say, Chrysler was bailed
out of bankrupcy, later General Motors stock went to junk status
over night and Ford has struggled. Plants were closed, concessions
were required of unions and quality needed upgrading to compete
with Japanese car makers (who are typically not unionized).

The "successful (auto) companies" I refer to are not found in Detroit.

It would be hard to find another industry (other than the airplines)
that has struggled and suffered as much as the auto industry has
over the past 35 years.

That's because they were and are still stupidly managed. In the late '60s,
the auto industry began laying off their engineers. That resulted in '70s
cars that were assembled from outdated technology, rather than designed
for the times. In the '80s, they lobbied against the CAFE standards (as
they are doing today). As a result, they could only offer inefficient
pigs. Then, they sold people on "SUVs" that may be the least practical
vehicles in urban environments. Today, they're left with an inventory that
they can't give away, and Toyota et al are eating their lunch.

Neil