stem, you are welcome!
On Nov 4, 9:11 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with your advice Orn. And thanks for the link.
>
> On Nov 3, 3:03 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "...I am sorry to be distracted but I am trying not to laugh my derier
> > off in response to the Thorn Clone and may have jumped about too much
> > - my communications problem again:) apologies..." - CB
>
> > Accepted. That particular sort of flame warrior is best ignored. A
> > good analogy in the courrent context is Tar
> > Baby.http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/tar+baby
>
> > On Nov 3, 12:55 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I brought up return on investment trying to figure out if there was any
> > > positive side to the innovations brought about by the military machine. I
> > > asked for specific innovations anyone could trace to the military. It
> > > would
> > > be better to have used a positive inflection and say "what positive
> > > results
> > > have been achieved? I am sorry to be distracted but I am trying not to
> > > laugh
> > > my derier off in response to the Thorn Clone and may have jumped about too
> > > much - my communications problem again:) apologies...
>
> > > Okay, where were we? yes, what innovations of a positive nature have been
> > > directly produced in relation to the military machine? composites? MRE's?
> > > I
> > > mean anything?
>
> > > Yeah, crossbow wasnt a positive creation was it? I mean the application
> > > had
> > > one intent...oops:)
>
> > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > > > Perhaps you can expand more beyond the cross bow? I found you started
> > > > out dealing with finance (ROI) and now appear to have shifted to
> > > > 'innovation'...and then to something that is 'solely military'. So,
> > > > sorry, no, I can't help here. I know of nothing that is 'solely
> > > > military'.
>
> > > > And, the list I presented had only one purpose, to fill in the few
> > > > examples of contractors I had typed, nothing more.
>
> > > > On Nov 3, 12:22 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I posed a question only of what innovations given by the crucible of
> > > > > war...I feel you still taking the tack that I am pro-war thus perhaps
> > > > > too defensive! Guess I should go further back to the original Roman
> > > > > standing cross bow to make my question clearer. Is there anything you
> > > > > can separate out that is solely military? I am asking for help here?
> > > > > regardless of ROI...:)
>
> > > > > YOU got to be kidding on the "research claimed" though? That list of
> > > > > Army contractors tells us where they get thier supplies commercially,
> > > > > not where the research originated. So, in essence, you say Skunkworks
> > > > > itself gets thier designs from a publicly funded university? That I
> > > > > can't wholly believe. Sure, some of it is shared, no one disputes
> > > > > that, much innovation has always been commandeered by military for
> > > > > military use. Much of it is funded/started by the military after they
> > > > > have leveraged the scientists doing the research into a corner, afraid
> > > > > to lose their jobs if they don't capitulate. That does not mean they
> > > > > don't work directly for Skunk on skunk property, paid by Skunk. Scaled
> > > > > Composites is on the NYSE, but I don't own stock in it:) Skunk is much
> > > > > sexier stock...
>
> > > > > If you can drop the anti-military set for just a moment and scrape
> > > > > through to the innovations - separate them from the killing machine?
>
> > > > > On Nov 3, 1:58 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "…War is a crucible of innovation…" – CB
>
> > > > > > Having been a CFO, ROI is of little value when doing a full
> > > > > > situational analysis.
>
> > > > > > And, when it comes to R & D, almost all 'research' claimed by
> > > > > > Boeing,
> > > > > > Lockheed Martin, GE, etc. (see:
> > > >http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/
> > > > > > ) is in fact produced in publicly funded Universities and then
> > > > > > taken/
> > > > > > given to the private sector. Since 'we' have to pay for everything
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > private sector makes with no credit for our initial funding, I don't
> > > > > > see how much 'benefit' can be claimed, at least not in a material
> > > > > > nor
> > > > > > financial way.
>
> > > > > > Overall, the military budget is seen as being bloated and wasteful.
> > > > > > While a political reference and only a very quick overview, some
> > > > > > information can be gleaned at:
> > > >http://www.votenader.org/issues/military-budget/
>
> > > > > > As to Burt Rutan, perhaps he influenced the BD series that found
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > way into Budwiser commercials as well as James Bond films. And, of
> > > > > > course, Scaled is owned by Northrop Grumman. Since this company is
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > the NYSE (NOC), perhaps one can get a great ROI by purchasing stock?
>
> > > > > > Of course, you would be owning a lot of waste too. Cases in point:
> > > > > > "Based on year 2002 data, researchers at the Political Economy
> > > > > > Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts identified
> > > > > > Northrop Grumman as the 17th-largest corporate producer of air
> > > > > > pollution in the United States; according to their study, Northrop
> > > > > > Grumman facilities released more than 520,000 pounds of toxic
> > > > > > chemicals into the air in that year."
> > > > > > "The corporation has also been linked to 52 superfund toxic waste
> > > > > > sites."
> > > > > > "In 2003, the company was among 84 parties with which the United
> > > > > > States Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
> > > > > > Justice, and the state of New York reached an estimated US$ 15
> > > > > > million
> > > > > > settlement for the rehabilitation of the Mattiace Petrochemical
> > > > > > Company Superfund site in Glen Cove, Long Island; in the same year,
> > > > > > Northrop Grumman agreed to pay $33,214 after EPA inspectors found
> > > > > > hazardous waste violations at the Capistrano test site."
>
> > > > > > "Northrop Grumman has had to deal with multiple scandals during its
> > > > > > history. The company was sued in 1999 for allegedly knowingly giving
> > > > > > the Navy defective aircraft. This suit seeks $210 million in damages
> > > > > > and is ongoing. Then in 2003, the company was sued for allegedly
> > > > > > overcharging the U.S. government for space projects in the 1990s.
> > > > > > Northrop Grumman paid $111.2 million to settle that suit out of
> > > > > > court."
>
> > > > > > You can also see how they figure into the purchase of political
> > > > > > power.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman
>
> > > > > > So, yes, I agree, the full story may include a lot of different
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > and the 'bottom line', in this case deemed to be financial,
> > > > > > continues
> > > > > > to appear to be a big loss.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:26 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I did not suggest we should ever start a war to promote R&D. My
> > > > > > > question better put was, if anything, what innovative gains have
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > made? I just wonder how it rolls out on paper...it is an aspect
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > is interesting. War is a crucible of innovation. Nasty for sure,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > it happens.
>
> > > > > > > I'm just glad folks like Burt Rutan are going to the outer limits
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the atmosphere with private funding, sans military.
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:20 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hi y'all - all I can see is a huge defecit. R&D can be
> > > > > > > > performed in
> > > > > > > > many locations. We don't need to start, and try to control, a
> > > > > > > > civil
> > > > > > > > war to practice on.
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:04 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Wonder how all that spendage relates in a return on
> > > > > > > > > investment as
> > > > regards
> > > > > > > > > to military research and development? what is the return on
> > > > investment? I
> > > > > > > > > know of some: composites, computer security...can anyone else
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > positive return on military R&D?
>
> > > > > > > > > wonder if anyone has numbers on that side? [?]
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - yes, it is almost as much as I lost last month
> > > > during the
> > > > > > > > > > debacle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:26 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > $3,000,000,000,000 for a war is a lot of money. That is
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > > than I made since the beginning of the war. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:55 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.good.is/?p=12104-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > 329.gif
> > > > > > > > > < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Memphis Freethought Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
