20 Years

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

[ ...]

I don't have to listen to someone blithering uselessly about "gutr feelings" (or any other form of general, unfounded, and/or poorly-defined "belief") to know that there exist important *facts* about terrorism and terrorists. There is a lot I can't go into, even after this much time, but suffice it to say that there are a great many serious *possibilities*. It's one thing, however, to say that a given scenario or set of scenarios is *possible* or, for than matter, *likely*, and it is an entirely different matter to collect and _most importantly_ recognize evidence indicating that this or that scenario is *imminent*.

Chertoff's blither was entirely useless, because there is no sort of contingency plaaning that is possible based upon someone's ramblings that "the continent migh be attacked in late Summer or early Fall".

Having a fear, or more perhaps accurately, a concern about the possibility of terrorist attack is not a "phantom fear", unless one is living with one's head stuck in a hole somewhere. THe difference between fear and concern is that concern is a basis for intelligent analysis and planning, whereas fear, especially non-specific fear, leads only to knee-jerk reactions that *at best* are about as useful as a landed fish's flopping around in the boat, and at worst, very easily lead a people to degenerate into a police state. ((Consider, after all, the free-floating anxiety in early 20th-century Germany regarding unionization and Communism and consider the part it played in the rise of the Nazis - and never forget that Hitler was *voted* into power.)) OTOH, if there is good information that a specific event is highly likely to occur within a definable timeframe, and in a definable place or set of places, then it is possible (if currently unlikely) that intelligent planning can take place.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

THey couldn't pick cotton with steam-powered machines - even as recently as 40 years ago, much (and maybe all, I'd have to check) harvesting was done by hand. I'd have to check, but this is *IIRC* one reason that cotton-production has largely shifted to other countries which have large pools of cheap labor. Again, I need to check, btu that's my current understanding (I know someone whose family used to raise cotton in Arkansas - tehy switched to rice and soybeans because those were far more easy and economical to grow, and therefore far more profitable at market).

Similar situation with many fruits and vegetables. Increasing numbers of clever mechanisms have been developed overthe past couple of decades, but there is still a need for people to hand-harvest many items.

Free? You're joking, right...?

The machines were not free; spare parts were not free; the labor needed to stoke the machines was not free... Engines made many processes *more efficient*, but saying that engines were "free" is, sorry, but just plain absurd. Even today, there are many things that machines simply can't do, and manual labor is not a thing of the past.

I think you've missed some of the details abotu certain aspects of market economics...

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

[ ... ]

No, go back to the top line and re-read what you wrote. Note specifically that you said, "If a gov.t tries to...." That introduces the hypothetical, which in turn indicates a discussion open to accurate definitions, as opposed toindicating, as you later state, nothing mroe than an exposition of current conditions and, especially, slang or vernacular useages.

I'm not trying to be uppity, I'm only trying to increase accuracy so as to have, for myself, a better handle on what is and is not being said.

Now, in most legal systems, starting from small villages and extending through complex societies, there is nearly always a *set* of reactions to what that society considers to be criminal actions. So, in that sense, yes, many (and I'd think most) legal ssytems take into account various extenuating circumstances.

Re: the meaning of the term "equality", this is the best summary I'd found to date:

Equality as a sociopolitical term is simply not the same thing as the matematical conccept of "equates to/equating to". IOW, you're mixing up terms, concepts, and definitions.

As for the word "fair", you introduced it, not I. There is some fascinating information also at the Stanford site:

explains it better, and in more detail, than I either can or am willing to take the time (and bandwidth =:-o ) to attempt...

[Kris Krieger]

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

heh... ;)

Actually, once I see the "you're an idiot f*** you" sort fo thing, I just mark the whole cascade as "read". I don't read all that fast, and I write

*really* slowly, so I have to filter so as to try to not waste *too* much of my time

I don't care about the mini-biographies unless someone has an interesting life-story. I try to cram waaay too much into my brain as it is, so Ihave no room for "so-and-so used to post in alt.smorgasbord under the name hamncheese, and would whine about field mice", or whatever the hell...

If MikeB write something that I find interesting, amusing, clever, or worthy of comment, I'll read and write a reply if I want to, regardless of whether he used to be hamncheese at alt.smorgasbord...OTOH, if he, ro anyone, writes stuff that I find to be childish, nasty, irrelevant, nasty, or stupid, I'll ignore it.

No biggie, I just have no interest in wasting my time on trash- talk and other garbage...there are too many *interesting* things in the world ;) !

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The Cotton Gin separated the seeds from the fiber. It did not plant, tend, or harvest the crop...

"It was first invented in the 1920's, but was not made practiccal until the

1950's, and even then, it was not implemented on most farms..."

[gruhn]

I didn't see anybody claim that.

Steam _power_ was _essentially_ free. You might do better to ask "I don't understand, please explain."

[gruhn]

There you go, you're catching on, good. Save one of us having to explain.

[Kris Krieger]

gruhn wrote in news:1184905327.192787.43480 @m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Except that I do understand, and it's neither true, nor the point. I say not true, because, even after teh engine was purchased (i.e., produced and shipped), someone had to collect the fuel, and stoke the engines. Unless one proposes a scenario in which one individual refines their own ore, pours their own molds, builds their own engine, chops and processes their own wood/charcoal, then it's inaccurate to say that the power is free. IOW, a power source cannot be economically separated from the infrastructrue required to provide it.

Going by your statement, human power is also essentially free. What is expensive is housing and feeding the labor force so as to obtain that power.

But the notion of whether power is "free" is not the point. The advantage of the engine is the power *output* in relation to size and the efficiency of the fuel source. And teh constraint is whether that power can be applied to the performance of a specific task.

The specific task refrenced is the harvesting and processing of cotton. As I noted elsewhere, cotton was not commonly machine-harvested even in the

1950's. So how do you think the cotton was *picked*? It was harvested via manual labor. And, in poorer countries, this remains the case.

What happened is that the cotton gin *increased* the number of slaves, because the ability to process more cotton bolls in ever-shorter periods of time meant that more could be usefully grown, which in turn required more labor to plant, tend, and harvest it.

Sorry but your contention that steam power was eliminating the need for slaves before the Civil War due to some sort of "market cometition" simply doesn't hold. Teh need for them might have shifted somewhat, but the overall demand for them actually increased.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Er.....I want a reasonable level of accuracy...I already have a good idea of the timeline. IF I wrote *everything* down, tho', it'd turn into a book... =;-o And *nobody* wants *that* =8-O

*Not at that period (pre-Civil War) of time.*

In the US. Not necessarily so in other countries which are cash-poor but labor/population-rich.

There is the economic crux. Machinery has a high up-front cost, and has maintenence and fuel costs; human labor is proportionally far less efficient, but in many countries, is immensely cheaper.

*Eventually*. And, again, that also depends upon whcih geographical location is being described. More to the point, most humans don't tolerate slavery, but vast numbers do tolerate wages that aren't much higher than what provides a minimal level of shelter, clothing, and food.

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

THe problem *as I see it*, however, is that, if businesses and/or consumers in the US profit from another country's economic disparities, then the US remains patrt of the economic web, and is not isolated from it all (and therefore, also not entirely innocent).

Sadly, yes, in various forms...

During that time-frame, what also happened was that large amounts of cheap labor entered the US - so many desperate immigrants came that companies were able to get away with paying laborers *less* than what it would cost to maintain slaves, less than "living wages".

IOW, in the late 1800's and through the early 1900's, the availability of machinery occurred in tandem with a burgeoning population of potential workers who were also quite desperate. Without large numbers of barely- paid workers, and government policies that were pro-industry and anti- labor, the insdustrial revolution would have been hindered - not halted, btu eitehr ti would have occurred more slowly, or ther might have been a greater push towards efficiency, or I dunno what else - but it would have been different.

All of the above is true. THe gov.t deals with gov.ts, and it seems tha tthe poorer a nation is, the more corrupt its governemnt - which is one major reason that the countries *are* so poor. In more than one instance, famine has occurred, not because of crop shortfalls ro food shortage, but because of direct gov.t or military interference with distribution of goods to people they didn't like.

What burns me is that my tax dollars end up going, not to all those starving mothers and children that Americans are admonished to help/feed, but often, the the guns used to slaughter their people...