The Country Which Has Had The Most Impact on The Modern World

@PJ: Sure, but in turn they come with their own unique set of issues that don't point at "too much of a good thing" but "too little of another good thing". If you take Japan as an example of a country which was largely driven to success in much the same way, it morphed into a country which is almost addicted as a society to escapism and it breeds very nasty social issues. South Korea has very tough problems related to a persistent corruption and the extent to which government and a couple of powerful families/concerns are intertwined, also in the way how the less fortunate South Koreans are treated ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

China built entire cities as America struggled to rebuild the site of the Twin Towers. The Eurozone's problems are well documented.

---

Those cities and chinese products have a habit of falling apart or exploding.

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...v-news-top-gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Those cities and chinese products have a habit of falling apart or exploding.

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...v-news-top-gun

---

Too much to respond to but this is basically right. Chinese progress is built on an unsustainable bubble, particularly in regards to their housing market. Really, who builds cities where no one lives?

The rest of Asia has peaked with only limited chances of growth. Granted, not as limited as, say, Europe, but the Asian tiger is a fantasy.

Where does one country / civilisation end and the next begin? If one were to choose England for example, it merely passed on developments which can easily be traced back to Greek / Roman developments and is hence merely a vector.

As such, I would have to say that the Roman Empire continues to have the largest effect: we still use their laws, they turned a religion of a few nutters running around in the Middle East to a religion of nutters spanning the globe. Their influence of language can be seen in several continents.

If we are merely talking very recent and impact in terms of geopolitical, then I think that the biggest bruiser in the room, complete with a big stick and lobotomy scars, is the USA. Never afraid to cause impact all over the place with a curious mix of zealous self interest and good intentions which invariably leads to if nothing else a big impact and unintended consequences.

China manufactures a lot of stuff, but as yet creates little of it, and if they were not doing so there are many other countries that would pick up the slack. No other countries would be prepared to have the unilateral impact in so many different areas that the USA does.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As such, I would have to say that the Roman Empire continues to have the largest effect: we still use their laws, they turned a religion of a few nutters running around in the Middle East to a religion of nutters spanning the globe. Their influence of language can be seen in several continents.

---

No. Both were a products of the age mostly not much Roman about it in many aspects. Most typical and new things of Christianity are typically for the late-hellenistic Judean situation and religious trends. So typical of Christianity as the apocalypse or the Messiah, was just the sectish trend in Judea after first being dominated both politically and culturally by the Hellenes and later the Romans, and the inspiration found in the uprising by the Maccabaeans or for the Messiah part the Bar Kochba revolution. The old testament is of course a product of even more ancient times. Sure the Romans changed (or distorted) it a lot and invented the church (though personally I see that as a bad thing in some ways) and it's organisation. When it comes to law, yes Rome made some innovations and we took their laws as a basis, but again it was a by product of the time.

Men has made the world as it is today, not states, which are of course man made as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

@PJ: Sure, but in turn they come with their own unique set of issues that don't point at "too much of a good thing" but "too little of another good thing". If you take Japan as an example of a country which was largely driven to success in much the same way, it morphed into a country which is almost addicted as a society to escapism and it breeds very nasty social issues. South Korea has very tough problems related to a persistent corruption and the extent to which government and a couple of powerful families/concerns are intertwined, also in the way how the less fortunate South Koreans are treated ...

---

I am certainly not suggesting that the Asian nations are flawless. Indeed, each comes with its own unique set of issues. However, as a whole, the region is comparatively better positioned for growth and advancement than the West at this point in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Those cities and chinese products have a habit of falling apart or exploding.

---

That is nothing compared to some of the shoddy construction and poor products one could find in cities like New York, Chicago, and St. Louis near the turn of the 20th century and even in rapidly industrializing Britain a bit earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad

Too much to respond to but this is basically right. Chinese progress is built on an unsustainable bubble, particularly in regards to their housing market. Really, who builds cities where no one lives?

---

Ever heard of ghost towns? :grin:

Nothing? When was the last time you heard of exploding chairs in america? Or a New York man hole shooting 50 feet in the air? Yeah the western engineers and architects screw up, but rarely in such spectacular ways. Heck, where else do you find exploding watermelons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Ever heard of ghost towns? :grin:

---

I must admit that they do it better than we did.

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Asian growth is relative growth. While I'm glad that modern prosperity is spreading in the region I'm not in awe of it like others. It's hard to pin this down to a single country or political entity because, like others have shown, it's about Western culture and the exchange of ideas. China, in particular, is much more involved in intellectual theft than innovation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Those cities and chinese products have a habit of falling apart or exploding.

Also, this was something I found that makes me laugh:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...v-news-top-gun

---

While this is all true there is nothing in those same articles or in Asian character prevents them eventually correcting these defects.

When one examines the idea people had of something being "Made in Japan" it has changed in the last 50 yrs completely. Forced by a lack of materials and resources after WW2 they had by default to focus on product quality.

This focus meant Japan imported the most modern management and quality techniques from America and eventually supassed many American technical achievements. This went as far as people even believing that Japan invented lean manufacturing when in fact American invented it but saw no need for it as it had no competitors.

Eevntually when America woke up to Japanese engineering they foolishly believed they were competing on price so they cut quality budgets and made inferior products this in turn reinforced Japans standing as a quality manufacturer.

What brought Japan down was a simple property bubble that was let get out of hand however even a laid low Japan is still a massively developed and rich country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Nothing? When was the last time you heard of exploding chairs in america? Or a New York man hole shooting 50 feet in the air? Yeah the western engineers and architects screw up, but rarely in such spectacular ways. Heck, where else do you find exploding watermelons?

---

Look up the American 'muckrakers' of the early 20th century and read some of their works. My favorite, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, details some of the egregious practices in the American meat packing industry. Here's a spoiler: workers often fell into rendering tanks and were simply ground up with the rest of the meat and sent out to grocery stores around the country. China is certainly not unique among developing nations in demonstrating the dark side of industrialization.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Chinese manufacture products to the specifications they are given. Chinese companies are capable of designing and building technologically sophisticated products, but it is often the case that Western companies contract Chinese manufacturers to produces products in the cheapest manner possible with very few questions asked. They often find out that you get what you pay for. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Asian growth is relative growth. While I'm glad that modern prosperity is spreading in the region I'm not in awe of it like others. It's hard to pin this down to a single country or political entity because, like others have shown, it's about Western culture and the exchange of ideas. China, in particular, is much more involved in intellectual theft than innovation.

---

I'm taking a much longer term perspective. Individual Asian economies will grow and falter, but the region will be the center of world economic activity in not so distant future. With that comes the ability to have the kind of global impact discussed in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Look up the American 'muckrakers' of the early 20th century and read some of their works. My favorite, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, details some of the egregious practices in the American meat packing industry. Here's a spoiler: workers often fell into rendering tanks and were simply ground up with the rest of the meat and sent out to grocery stores around the country. China is certainly not unique among developing nations in demonstrating the dark side of industrialization.

---

Yikes. Maybe i'm more hung up with the chinese because I'm spoiled by western industry that is generally forced to be standards by governments and the idea that sort of thing still goes on is surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

When it comes to law, yes Rome made some innovations and we took their laws as a basis, but again it was a by product of the time.

Men has made the world as it is today, not states, which are of course man made as well.

---

Some innovations? The legal system of most of the developed world, heck most of the world, is based on Roman foundations. There are hardly any known laws or codices from before the Romans, sure they must've been there, but we don't have them. Rome was the first state to develop such a lawsystem with professionals and the first to make exhaustive codices of their laws. And they still are the forefathers of any European or related system, albeit developed a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Is there any doubt that people a few hundred years in the future who look back asking this question will say "USA"?

I'm not backing Vuk's post, but don't discount the American influence. Without a doubt we are up there with all the other superpowers of history, and in terms of global impact we certainly must be at or near the top by now.

---

At the very least the U.S. won't be forgotten 2,000 years from now thanks to the Apollo program, America's single greatest achievement in my opinion.

I have to answer Rome, though. Britain is a close second. But if France or someone else was the super imperialist nation instead, things today would be different but we'd probably still be on the same path. Without Rome, however, the modern world would probably be completely alien. There would be a country called Schleckmalurky covering the U.S. midwest, subjecting its people to a Zoroastrian theocracy.

Quote:

---

That is nothing compared to some of the shoddy construction and poor products one could find in cities like New York, Chicago, and St. Louis near the turn of the 20th century and even in rapidly industrializing Britain a bit earlier.

---

But don't you think a major difference in the world is that when we industrialized, the rest of the world wasn't? I mean, if the US looked today like it did back then it would not be a good sign of inevitable progress, it would be a sign of being way behind. I admit I'm talking about something I don't know much about, but I'm very suspicious of "asia ascendent" stories. They tend to be quite popular with liberals and conservatives, which leaves fewer people to fact check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

At the very least the U.S. won't be forgotten 2,000 years from now thanks to the Apollo program, America's single greatest achievement in my opinion.

---

How so? :dizzy2:

The Soviets went to the moon too. Is it that much greater an achievement to get there a few years earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The Soviets went to the moon too. Is it that much greater an achievement to get there a few years earlier?

---

They didn't put humans on it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

They didn't put humans on it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

---

Would they have if Apollo had failed? With something that's mainly propaganda value the reason for going dries up pretty quick. I don't see the greatness of the achievement...

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

---

Somebody's grumpy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Would they have if Apollo had failed? With something that's mainly propaganda value the reason for going dries up pretty quick. I don't see the greatness of the achievement...

---

You don't see the greatness of rocketing humans to a foreign body in space and planting a flag there, then returning safely to earth?

You are very hard to impress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

---

I didn't say landing on the moon saved lives or changed daily life on earth, I said it was a great achievement. IMO takes a very dull view of human existence to judge every accomplishment by how it practically improved daily life. Might as well burn down the Louvre then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The moon landings look like a bit on an aberration. Great, one command economy beat another to plant a flag. Since then, everyone realised it was a complete waste of time and didn't bother for the next few decades, since the penis-measuring exercise had been completed.

It didn't really change the world in any significant way. Yes, there were some technologies that trickled down from it, but no more than providing billions to Universities for R&D would have achieved.

The internet, the discovery of DNA, the transistor, hell, discovering antibiotics made a far greater and long-standing change to the world than sticking someone on a ICBM with an oxygen supply.

~:smoking:

---

I am astounded at this statement sure the space race achievement list is nearly endless and not confined either to purely technological advacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space Race Advances in technology and education


When the Space Age Blasted Off, Pop Culture Followed

10 tech breakthroughs to thank the space race for

merely providing money to universities and foundadtions would not have given us much of the tech we take for granted today a lot of it came about due to specific problems with going into space.

It didn't occur to me to pick the Roman empire, because I thought the OP meant "countries" that are a little more recent. While what PJ says about one country (or person) building on the achievements of its predecessors is true, the Roman empire does stand out for the enormity of its own contribution- arguably moreso than the Greeks, the British or Luxembourg.

...

As for the moon landings, no offence intended, but I think it's a little short sighted to measure its significance by the returns it has brought so far. I do think that human space travel (in our own solar system, that is) is going to be enormously important in the far future; and I'm sure that future generations will look on the 20th century space race as an important phase in history.

The moon landing wasn't impressive? Obviously, we have some martians here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The moon landing wasn't impressive? Obviously, we have some martians here.

---

More like jealous Europeans. Look at how much pride they get in "leading" the fight in Libya with our bombs ACIN. Don't rub their faces in one of the most impressive feats of the 20th century.

No need to burst the children's bubble.

:wink:

We did some great things with satellites, while the USSR was doing a bunch of propaganda crap that made no real advancement. Then we stopped funding the good stuff and went for the propaganda ourselves.

The moon landing is impressive technologically, but not "the greatest achievement of the US"...I see no reason why the Soviets couldn't have managed it, even if it would have taken them longer.

We barely remember the names of the guys who went to the south pole first or climbed mount Everest first. The Moon race will only be different if we end up having a bunch of moon colonies like Kral suggests.

Because braving some cold weather is totally the same as leaving the planet, landing on another celestial body, and returning. :beam:

I wonder how you'd feel if they discovered microscopic organisms on Mars. After all there are billions of different kinds on Earth, and no one remembers the name of the guy who discovered the latest known bacteria. Its just some more useless microscopic cells, who cares if it's alien?

"braving some cold weather"

Just proving how quickly we forget about the antarctic expeditions :)

However much you can possibly dramatize it, it doesn't compare to flying to the moon and back. It just doesn't, and to think it's even in the same ballpark is baffling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

It didn't occur to me to pick the Roman empire, because I thought the OP meant "countries" that are a little more recent. While what PJ says about one country (or person) building on the achievements of its predecessors is true, the Roman empire does stand out for the enormity of its own contribution- arguably moreso than the Greeks, the British or Luxembourg.

---

Then I go for Larsa. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

We did some great things with satellites, while the USSR was doing a bunch of propaganda crap that made no real advancement. Then we stopped funding the good stuff and went for the propaganda ourselves.

The moon landing is impressive technologically, but not "the greatest achievement of the US"...I see no reason why the Soviets couldn't have managed it, even if it would have taken them longer.

---

That's highly debatable.

Soviets probably did have technology to land on the moon, they lacked funds to do it. One could argue that taking parts that weigh many tons and then assembling them in space to create a fully functional manned space station is a greater and more beneficial achievement in terms of technological advancement than landing on the moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

However much you can possibly dramatize it, it doesn't compare to flying to the moon and back. It just doesn't, and to think it's even in the same ballpark is baffling.

---

It's actually not that different. Some of the more extreme areas on Earth are not unlike some other extreme areas on other planets, like Mars. The Antarctic can easily be used as a training environments for long term exploration. Deep sea exploration is another neglected area that could lead to advancements in extra-planetary exploration; like the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's highly debatable.

Soviets probably did have technology to land on the moon, they lacked funds to do it. One could argue that taking parts that weigh many tons and then assembling them in space to create a fully functional manned space station is a greater and more beneficial achievement in terms of technological advancement than landing on the moon.

---

I don't believe that. They steal most of the technology they need and likely couldn't fill in the gaps by themselves. That, and their government couldn't handle failure of such an important mission.

What was the point in being second to the moon. Who cared? They probably had the know how, not the spare funds.

Giving money to universities would have probably given different breakthroughs, with probably a lot less wastage. Yes, there a lot of them. How many billion did it cost for each one?

If missions had been restricted to unmanned ones more could have been achieved as humans are basically dead weight when all one is doing is planting a flag and taking some pictures.

Future space travel has will utilise a lot of high tech computer systems that have managed to develop without NASA backing it. Many new fibres that are to be used came from many other industries and not necessarily NASA.

What pods do we use to get to the Space Station? They're Russian. What rockets are in service at the moment? Most of them Russian. Who is building the next gen craft? Private enterprises, as the ones NASA came up with were hideously complicated and expensive.

Sorry, but the race to the moon was not the genesis of the world as we know it.

The Space Space station has a lot of theoretical wonders, but few that have been realised.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What was the point in being second to the moon. Who cared? They probably had the know how, not the spare funds.

Giving money to universities would have probably given different breakthroughs, with probably a lot less wastage. Yes, there a lot of them. How many billion did it cost for each one?

If missions had been restricted to unmanned ones more could have been achieved as humans are basically dead weight when all one is doing is planting a flag and taking some pictures.

Future space travel has will utilise a lot of high tech computer systems that have managed to develop without NASA backing it. Many new fibres that are to be used came from many other industries and not necessarily NASA.

What pods do we use to get to the Space Station? They're Russian. What rockets are in service at the moment? Most of them Russian. Who is building the next gen craft? Private enterprises, as the ones NASA came up with were hideously complicated and expensive.

Sorry, but the race to the moon was not the genesis of the world as we know it.

The Space Space station has a lot of theoretical wonders, but few that have been realised.

~:smoking:

---

You have the thing backwards Rory but I can see you are not going to turn so what the points your smoking smiley says it all really.

After all the CAT scans and MRI's you would need if prolonged smoking caused cancer would naturally have popped into existence if NASA hadnt needed to map the moon surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I don't believe that. They steal most of the technology they need and likely couldn't fill in the gaps by themselves. That, and their government couldn't handle failure of such an important mission.

---

That's your prerogative but the moon landing was a publicity stunt mostly. Yes, it does rouse the human spirit, in a climbing Mont Everest kind of way, but it had little practical purpose.

It is also quite ludicrous to claim that Soviets stole most of their space technology. In 2012, USA and EU use Russian rockets to get stuff in space, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

After all the CAT scans and MRI's you would need if prolonged smoking caused cancer would naturally have popped into existence if NASA hadnt needed to map the moon surface.

---

CAT scans utilise integration, X-rays and computing power. Which of these did NASA invent?
MRI utilises supermagnets and the spin of hydrogen. Which did NASA invent?

NASA did utilise radar. I thought that was invented in the '30's.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's your prerogative but the moon landing was a publicity stunt mostly. Yes, it does rouse the human spirit, in a climbing Mont Everest kind of way, but it had little practical purpose.

It is also quite ludicrous to claim that Soviets stole most of their space technology. In 2012, USA and EU use Russian rockets to get stuff in space, not the other way around.

---

The Soviets stole most of their technology, period. Their command economy couldn't take full advantage of it. The pride of great nations is a bit more than a publicity stunt. Now we have sports, then we had space. Which one matters more?

Russian rockets are little more than converted ICBMs and most certainly NOT a result of any technological supremacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

CAT scans utilise integration, X-rays and computing power. Which of these did NASA invent?
MRI utilises supermagnets and the spin of hydrogen. Which did NASA invent?

NASA did utilise radar. I thought that was invented in the '30's.

~:smoking:

---

look your fine believe what you want your smoking smiley has spoken.

<insert smiley here to assert my internets power>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

look your fine believe what you want your smoking smiley has spoken.

<insert smiley here to assert my internets power>

---

Anybody notice an extra amount of hostility in the Backroom today? Let's find a common enemy to unite against. I say we invade the Frontroom! :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The Soviets stole most of their technology, period. Their command economy couldn't take full advantage of it. The pride of great nations is a bit more than a publicity stunt. Now we have sports, then we had space. Which one matters more?

Russian rockets are little more than converted ICBMs and most certainly NOT a result of any technological supremacy.

---

Edgy today?

If by stole, you mean from the Germans, both USA and USSR are guilty of that but both had rocket technologies prior to that and both added to that afterward. The best ww2 rocket launcher was a Soviet one, definitely not stolen from the Germans. That command economy sent the first object into space, first living being into space, first human into space, built the first permanently manned space station (and its technology is still dominant in other stations) etc...

I shudder to think what would it be like if they were able to take "full advantage" of it.

Sports analogy is spot on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Anybody notice an extra amount of hostility in the Backroom today? Let's find a common enemy to unite against. I say we invade the Frontroom! :knight:

---

excellant idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Edgy today?

If by stole, you mean from the Germans, both USA and USSR are guilty of that but both had rocket technologies prior to that and both added to that afterward. The best ww2 rocket launcher was a Soviet one, definitely not stolen from the Germans. That command economy sent the first object into space, first living being into space, first human into space, built the first permanently manned space station (and its technology is still dominant in other stations) etc...

I shudder to think what would it be like if they were able to take "full advantage" of it.

Sports analogy is spot on!

---

No. EDGY TODAY! :angry:

Let's start with the most gentile of showers where the water flowed delicately out of the showerhead and moistened my skin this morning. I had to keep checking to make sure it wasn't yellow, not that I would know what's that like or anything :worried:.

But no, really, read up on your Cold War history. The only way the Soviet military maintained a near technological parity with the west was through espionage. More delicately, but in equal volume, to what China does today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

But no, really, read up on your Cold War history. The only way the Soviet military maintained a near technological parity with the west was through espionage. More delicately, but in equal volume, to what China does today.

---

I thought there was some academic debate that the soviet programme was possibly a proof of convergent thought.

Beforehand the soviets might conclude atomic bombs were impossible but now they knew it could be done so they merely had to craft an answer.

It's like how writing might have developed because people knew writing was possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I thought there was some academic debate that the soviet programme was possibly a proof of convergent thought.

Beforehand the soviets might conclude atomic bombs were impossible but now they knew it could be done so they merely had to craft an answer.

It's like how writing might have developed because people knew writing was possible.

---

There were a lot of brilliant Soviet scientists but they couldn't afford proper research so they had to take shortcuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No. EDGY TODAY! :angry:

Let's start with the most gentile of showers where the water flowed delicately out of the showerhead and moistened my skin this morning. I had to keep checking to make sure it wasn't yellow, not that I would know what's that like or anything :worried:.

---

Ok, sorry. On a day like that , you certainly don't need me proving you wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Ok, sorry. On a day like that , you certainly don't need me proving you wrong.

---

:laugh4:

Yes, I know. :drama2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

For me it comes down to two Countries The UK And France

I say France because England is terribly boring, Scotland is like Alabama, and no one cares about the Welsh.

The only good thing to come out of England was the Sunday fry up and my mum

France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy

Vive Le Francios

Vive Le Republique

---

only one thing need be said to refute that:

Common Law.

but why stop there:

Gunboats
Dreadnoughts
Gin palaces
etc

Apart from the moon landing USSR has been leading the space race. First satellite, animal, man, woman in space. Most tonnage lifted. Ability to use standard fuels due to advanced porous metallurgy.

That and right now as we speak the US of A has to hitch hike to the international space station on Russian space craft.

NASA spent millions getting a pen to work in zero g. The russians use a pencil. Genuine genius solutions are elegant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Apart from the moon landing USSR has been leading the space race. First satellite, animal, man, woman in space. Most tonnage lifted. Ability to use standard fuels due to advanced porous metallurgy.

That and right now as we speak the US of A has to hitch hike to the international space station on Russian space craft.

NASA spent millions getting a pen to work in zero g. The russians use a pencil. Genuine genius solutions are elegant.

---

Why do people repeat this stuff???

NASA spent like $3 a pen, it was an independent company that developed them as a marketing gimmick or something (don't remember why). And if you break the tip of the pencil lead in zero G in floats around and can screw things up. They also burn very easily.

The story of the space race is quite interesting, no need to repeat urban legends and propaganda. The Russian program was all about firsts and things like 'first woman in space' that they could brag about., that's an insult to it not a compliment. The US was mainly concerned with spy satellites I think, and dragged their heels on launching their first satellite because sputnik solved a lot of problems for them regarding sovereignty of air space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If you break the tip of the pencil lead in zero G in floats around and can screw things up. They also burn very easily.

---

I don't know what the cost or the origins of the pen are; but the above two points are quite frankly irrelevant. There's more than just pencil tips floating around in your average manned spacecraft, and unless you're deliberately experimenting with open fire or sparks the tip will not ignite (auto ignition temps being rather higher than what you want to expose your astronauts to). Matches tend to work rather better if you daisy-chain phosporos tip to sulphur to graphite to match stick as you don't end up smearing graphite all over the matchbox.

Space race... Not much of a race with no manned lift capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I don't know what the cost or the origins of the pen are; but the above two points are quite frankly irrelevant. There's more than just pencil tips floating around in your average manned spacecraft, and unless you're deliberately experimenting with open fire or sparks the tip will not ignite (auto ignition temps being rather higher than what you want to expose your astronauts to). Matches tend to work rather better if you daisy-chain phosporos tip to sulphur to graphite to match stick as you don't end up smearing graphite all over the matchbox.

---

I suppose it could be hype by the manufacturor, but I see no reason to think it is really...

Quote:

---

NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge.

...

Because of the fire in Apollo 1,in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere.

---

edit:

More than you ever wanted to know:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1

Details on the lengths the pen company went to advertise themselves. Does make you wonder if it was anywhere near as useful as they try to imply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Space race... Not much of a race with no manned lift capacity.

---

???

Now I want to buy one of those space pens.

A) an atmospheric mix is available that allows the person to breath but is not flammable as there is not enough oxygen flow to feed a flame. So if one is really worried about flames use a different atmospheric mix.

B) US currently has no vehicles that can lift humans. ;( Which is very sad and also why NASA should run itself as an exploration and science organization on par with deep sea divers, Antartic explorers and mineral geophysicists... Take risks and get results.

Not have much time to respond up till now, but a low pressure 100% Oxygen atmosphere mix would indeed tend to explain this partly. Although in reality you wouldn't be able to survive that atmosphere long enough to do meaningful experiments: IIRC 20 mins of it is what you can typically take until its sustained effect becomes too much. Pure oxygen is essentially late 19th/early 20th century deep sea diving tech, unfortunately such mixes are rather toxic. That's why people started adding nitrogen to the mix, to dilute the oxygen.

But yeah at this point pure oxygen atmospheric mixes are a thing of the past.

philosiphy or sypholis?

(what happened to germany? anyway if it is about Philosophy, I think Germany is as, if not more influentual. Then ofcourse you have Philosophy of Mind but no self0-respecting philosopher cares about that ****)