Re: [Vo]:the nascent discipline of LENR Engineering

[Axil Axil]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth's heat


"One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone
is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy," says KamLAND
collaborator Stuart Freedman of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in
California. "Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from another
source is an unanswered question."

Could LENR be the source of heat production inside the earth?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-19-2016-toward-new-discipline-of.html
>
> The results of the 350 days Test- a 30 days mystery?
> Positive or negative but NOT imaginary
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

Someone in france, Gaspard Koenig support an interesting view on liberalism.
> the system should support autonomy, meaning that people should be secure
> enough to dare to behave autonomously and not to depend on anybody.
>

I like this line of thinking.


> real efficient behavior for the poor is not to share your wealth but allow
> them to produce it.
>

I think there's another intuition that is behind all of the focus on basic
income and economic inequality, at least in the US.  There's a general
feeling, perhaps even an assumption, that each person should have access to
the same opportunity, e.g., to make it big, to invent something new, to
write some famous novel, etc., even if they don't capitalize on that
opportunity.  So a child that grows up in a poor part of Brooklyn should
not be limited by that poverty and should be able to go on and do the kinds
of things that a person growing up in a prosperous part of northern
California might be able to do.

For Americans, at any rate, as long as the disparities are small enough to
turn a blind eye, which is something we're very good at, then we are able
to continue to believe that people have equal opportunity. But in a world
in which automation and other changes result in a massive centralization of
economic and political power, it is no longer possible to maintain this
self-understanding of equal access to opportunity.  So if things continue
in the present direction, people understand that the poor kid in Brooklyn
will have little practical chance of starting some important business,
etc., in the same way that we would be amazed if a kid living on the
streets of India went on to found a company like Apple.  It's possible, of
course, but highly unlikely.  A sense that things are heading in such a
direction might be leading to additional focus and reflection.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

Here is Bill O'Reilly's rebuttal, which I haven't fully read, but include
> for anyone who is interested:
>

Sorry!  That's Tim O'Reilly, not Bill O'Reilly.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Lennart Thornros]

Chris I agree with you about the equality under law. It is a joke. OJ
Simpson etc.
The poll you showed I am less impressed with. Too many of the questions are
based on the government and how it is done. That type of question will
probably make people vote along party lines.
It does not say how many of each group is polled so the significance of the
numbers are questionable. In any case the richest 1% is a sad split and in
this case they have very little impact.
Jed's idea that 13% of the 'elite' is better than nothing is disturbing as
there is no value in waiting for the government to take action.
I do not know Nick Hanauer. I think he is right.
Going back 100 plus years there were revolutions because government did not
react in time.
Seldom have such revolutions created a new better world. However, the
intention was to do so.
In this day and age with so good communication this type of reaction is
around the corner any day.
If the government is a king or a class by themselves, which have more
privileges than people in general coupled with a very uneven spread of
wealth, then the prerequisite for revolution is there.
Many people think that a distribution of the wealth via the government will
be effective. (Why now, when they never did anything effective.)
No, it is a question of adopting new technology, new law etc so people have
a feeling of autonomy. That is a very important factor often translated as
freedom.
Alain has a good argument for a base income for all, in a parallel tread.
It is obviously not time yet. It will take one of three routes as I can see.
1. People can see the advantages and it will change the attitude and
politicians will no longer be a class by themselves.
2. A revolution. (Not desired as it creates instability.)
3. The government implement a watered down form to keep the revolution at
bay. Most likely but with no long term value.
There are of course many ways it might not happen in addition.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Chris Zell  wrote:
>
> Attitudes of the rich?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/29/1302820/-Someone-finally-polled-the-1-And-it-s-not-pretty?detail=emailclassic
>>
>>
>>
>> There you go.  Yes, they have a tendency to be SOB’s.
>>
>
> Ugh. Well . . . On the other hand, 13% of them say it is "the
> responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
> between people with high incomes and those with low incomes."
>
> 13% is better than nothing.
>
> 46% of other people said this. They are Democrats, I am guessing.
>
> Other wealthy people throughout history have said this sort of thing.
> Theodore Roosevelt, for example. This is called enlightened self interest.
> Here is a modern example I posted before:
>
> "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014#ixzz3hr7nlghY
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Eric Walker]

Here is a piece by Paul Graham, beloved of the startup crowd for his
involvement in Y Combinator:

http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html

In this piece, Graham advances the depressing thesis that the post-WWII
period of middle-class prosperity was a historical moment, and that what we
are seeing now is a reversion to the historical norm of big disparities in
wealth. One fascinating thing about his essay is that he seems to be
arguing that this is as it should be, and that we should just limit our
efforts to eliminating dire poverty.  Graham believes that if he is
successful in what he is doing with promoting startups, it will have the
effect of increasing the gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

Here is Bill O'Reilly's rebuttal, which I haven't fully read, but include
for anyone who is interested:

https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/what-paul-graham-is-missing-about-inequality-a9f7e1613059

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

Attitudes of the rich?
>
>
>
>
> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/29/1302820/-Someone-finally-polled-the-1-And-it-s-not-pretty?detail=emailclassic
>
>
>
> There you go.  Yes, they have a tendency to be SOB’s.
>

Ugh. Well . . . On the other hand, 13% of them say it is "the
responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
between people with high incomes and those with low incomes."

13% is better than nothing.

46% of other people said this. They are Democrats, I am guessing.

Other wealthy people throughout history have said this sort of thing.
Theodore Roosevelt, for example. This is called enlightened self interest.
Here is a modern example I posted before:

"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014#ixzz3hr7nlghY

- Jed

[Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Chris Zell]

Attitudes of the rich?

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/29/1302820/-Someone-finally-polled-the-1-And-it-s-not-pretty?detail=emailclassic

There you go.  Yes, they have a tendency to be SOB's.

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Alain Sepeda]

2016-02-19 18:00 GMT+01:00 H LV :

> However, basic
> ​income ​
> should be high enough so that paid work does not need to be incentivized
> by money. Paid work
>

Someone in france, Gaspard Koenig support an interesting view on liberalism.
the system should support autonomy, meaning that people should be secure
enough to dare to behave autonomously and not to depend on anybody.

the problem with basic income is that it should be paid anyway by someone
who is paid for his activity.

Basic income is good not because it shares, but because it allows people to
be free enough to dare to produce better, and thus to increase the total
value, or reduce the total required effort or resource .
This is the same reason why "social security" (health, retirement,
education saving/insurance) if good for economics (people feel safer thus
produce better, invest riskier and consume more)

real efficient behavior for the poor is not to share your wealth but allow
them to produce it.

economic growth and international commerce have done more for Chinese
extreme poverty, and even African poverty (just beginning, mostly by
Chinese immigrant influence - joke), than all charity programs.

best solution to save people from cataclysm is to make them richer

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> A similar judgement can be made about slavery: it is bad for the economy
> because it is inefficient.
>

Yes. That was true even in the 19th century, which is one the reasons the
U.S. north was wealthier than the south. Coerced labor is inherently
inefficient.

Nowadays, even enthusiastic slave labor could not compete. For example,
even when people volunteer and work enthusiastically for free, they cannot
bake goods as cheaply as machinery can.



> However, the rich do not want to be viewed as selfish, so
> paid work must be portrayed as morally superior to any other
> ​notion
>  of work.
> ​
>

Let us be careful not to generalize about rich people. There are all kinds.
There are Democratic ones in Republican ones, although they do tend to
gravitate to the Republican Party. What I hope is that most rich people
will be pragmatic. Even the amoral ones mainly want more money. They do not
care what happens to other people, but they don't wish them harm. I hope
that we can convince the wealthy class that a guaranteed income will
increase overall wealth and give them more business opportunities. In that
case they will support it.

People can change their minds quickly about social policy. I was surprised
to see how quickly support for same-sex marriage spread through the U.S.
Here in Georgia, some conservatives are still fighting it, but it has
support from corporations such as Coca-Cola that do not want to rock the
boat. Mainly, they want to sell soft drinks to gay people, I assume. I can
well imagine that Coca-Cola would be thrilled to see a moderate guaranteed
income, given the mass market they serve.

Frankly, I do not see why you would care that other people are getting a
guaranteed income as long as you yourself are doing well. Money is not a
zero-sum resource. Why should anyone care whether other people work as long
as you get the goods and services you want? Back when we needed people to
do all jobs it made sense to get angry at people who shirked. When I go to
the Post Office and see people loafing around not working, it upsets me
because I am standing in line, and because I want them to deliver my mail
quickly. When I send an email, machines do all the work. There are no human
workers involved. No one shirks.

Suppose I go to a hardware store to buy a gadget. The employees are
standing around talking instead of helping me. That bothers me. So I go to
Amazon.com and buy the gadget instead. I eliminate human interaction. Yeah,
that's cold. It is unfeeling. It reduces overall employment. But I just
want the gadget. I am not there to make a social statement.

(Actually, the people at Lowe's are friendly & helpful. But the other day
they did not have a plastic toilet paper rod of the right size, so I got it
on Amazon instead. Question: why are there two different standards for
toilet paper rods?!)

- Jed

[Vo]:the nascent discipline of LENR Engineering

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-19-2016-toward-new-discipline-of.html

The results of the 350 days Test- a 30 days mystery?
Positive or negative but NOT imaginary

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[H LV]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

>
>
> the good way to judge policy is not through morality, but through
> incentive network.
>
>
>>
A similar judgement can be made about slavery: it is bad for the economy
because it is inefficient.
The argument sounds good, but slave owners are more concerned about their
personal loss of status
in the new order. On the other hand they don't want to be viewed as
selfish, so they make arguments
about the moral inferiority of black people.

Making sure basic income remains low enough to incentivise paid work is
about reassuring the rich they can still
have broad social control over those on the basic income. However, the rich
do not want to be viewed as selfish, so
paid work must be portrayed as morally superior to any other
​notion
 of work.
​
(For example being in school is not considered work. It
 is only considered preparation for work. No wonder why
so many young people hate school.)​

However, basic
​income ​
should be high enough so that paid work does not need to be incentivized by
money. Paid work
occurs in the marketplace according the values of the marketplace. A desire
to work in the marketplace should
be incentive enough. The extra income one receives is just a pleasant side
effect of working in the marketplace.
It should not be the rai·son d'ê·tre
​for ​
participati
​on​
in the marketplace.

Harry


Harry

Fwd: [Vo]:Intelligent robots make millions of jobs

[Frank Znidarsic]

The books are soft.  The apps are soft.  The board will have a value added 
software injection.  We are making nothing at all, just vaporware; but there 
they are products.  Welcome to a strange new land..



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l ; rvargo1062 
Sent: Fri, Feb 19, 2016 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots make millions of jobs


Again I am using new technology to take products to market.  I could never do 
this with 1990 technology.  I am working with a friend Ron A. on the next 
generation of Monitoring.  A board will blue tooth into a tablet.  The tablet 
will send alarm messages upon a contact closure on the board.  We are not 
building a board, just programming an existing one.  Audrino I believe.  I was 
inspired by the words of Robert Vargo,  "Capitalism Rewards thous who take a 
product to market!"


Google to carry my products next.  At this point I may have overdone at Amazon


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text=Znidarsic+Science+Books=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AZnidarsic+Science+Books




Barns and Noble below:




http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/%22Frank%20Znidarsic%22/_/N-8q8?Ntk=P_key_Contributor_List=mode%20matchall=SEM=BNB_DRS_Winter+15+Author+LT+ZN_&2sid=Google_p=SEGoS8230958_clickid=402x8230958




Frank Znidarsic 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots make millions of jobs

[Frank Znidarsic]

Again I am using new technology to take products to market.  I could never do 
this with 1990 technology.  I am working with a friend Ron A. on the next 
generation of Monitoring.  A board will blue tooth into a tablet.  The tablet 
will send alarm messages upon a contact closure on the board.  We are not 
building a board, just programming an existing one.  Audrino I believe.  I was 
inspired by the words of Robert Vargo,  "Capitalism Rewards thous who take a 
product to market!"


Google to carry my products next.  At this point I may have overdone at Amazon


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text=Znidarsic+Science+Books=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3AZnidarsic+Science+Books




Barns and Noble below:




http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/%22Frank%20Znidarsic%22/_/N-8q8?Ntk=P_key_Contributor_List=mode%20matchall=SEM=BNB_DRS_Winter+15+Author+LT+ZN_&2sid=Google_p=SEGoS8230958_clickid=402x8230958




Frank Znidarsic 

[Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Chris Zell]

I know this is a bit off topics but we have drifted off into utopian (or 
dystopian?) scenarios.  In the US, there is a severe problem with the lack of 
equality under law.
Whether it's a lack of public defenders or Federal agencies that thuggishly 
pursue small companies instead of big ones, the problem is there.   We have Too 
Big To Jail banks and
actual defense arguments in court shielding wealthy individuals in sentencing - 
because 'they would not do well in prison'.

There is a recent controversy about a Silicon Valley type publically protesting 
that he should not be offended by the sight or presence of homeless people in 
his city.

Adding new technology to this unjust state may make it worse - unless that tech 
can decentralize things. Go LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid,
> whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive
> to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive.
>

That is true, and important. Many wealthy people work hard even though they
do not need the money, but they seldom do useless busy-work. Except for
playing golf.



> if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained
> people in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern
> industry, deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low
> competence workers in rich countries . . .
>

Good point.



> people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not
> deserving the subsidies.
>

Well, for people who don't get the subsidies. "Deserving" is not the issue.
The U.S. tax system subsidizes home owners. That is unfair to people who
rent apartments and houses.

In other words, for every economic action there is an equal and opposite
reaction. That is not the so-called "law of unintended consequences." In
most cases we see the consequences, including deleterious ones, but we
decide it is worth the cost.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Alain Sepeda]

to explain more simply the interest of UNCONDITIONAL basic income.

if you have an income that is not removed if you work and get paid,
whatever it is, then you have no incentive not to work, and much incentive
to work, even for cheap, but never if it is not productive.
In this way basic income, unlike charity, promote work, but not absurd
work, only productive work.
This answer the catholic fear that people get lasy.
People are mostly rational, for local decision.

take from another perspective, if you subsidize poor, you multiply poor,
and reduce rich.
if you subsidized unemployed, you multiply unemployed, and deter workers,
in a relative way (you motivate less).

if you subsidize obsolete industry, or industry done by less trained people
in poorer countries, you multiply obsolete industry, deter modern industry,
deter trained workers in rich countries, and promote low competence workers
in rich countries, while detering induistry in place where it is the
cheapest and people are not trained enough...

the good way to judge policy is not through morality, but through incentive
network.

this way of analysing situation is valuable too for cold fusion, as it
clear explains the groupthink that emerged rationally around LENR evidences.

there was big subsidize for hotfusion, that were bigger because it was more
expensive. matching subsidies with cost motivate people to propose higher
costs. this is why you should not subsidize relative to the cost (the need
of the poor, the need of big science), but fixed, unconditional, or at best
to the opportunities.

science is also subsidized if consensual, and if you integarte that
publishing an article have much value for a scientist, then peer review
process, and high impact journal decide of a network of subsidies.
Current peer review by consensu tha promote high impact journal promote
that money get to money, I mean citation index goes to citation index.

people always forget that conditional subsidizes is a punishing tax on not
deserving the subsidies.



2016-02-18 20:12 GMT+01:00 H LV :

>
> ​from​
>
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2016/02/how-i-learnt-stop-worrying-and-love-basic-income
>
> ​
> How I learnt to stop worrying and love Basic Income
>
> John McDonnell's decision to consider moving to the benefit is the right
> one, says Jonathan Reynolds.
>
> ​The ​
> first time Basic Income was pitched to me I have to admit I thought it
> sounded completely unrealistic. An unconditional payment to each
> individual, to support their full lives, whether working, studying, caring
> or being cared for? I remember sitting in Stalybridge Labour Club with a
> beer after a meeting, when my friend Gordon introduced me to the concept.
> “How else,” asked Gordon, “will we ensure sufficient support for people as
> they have to retrain throughout their working lives - not just for several
> different jobs, but for several different careers?”.
>
> Gordon’s question is the right one, and it stuck with me. My outlook on
> politics is fundamentally shaped by my experience of growing up in the
> North East in the 1980s. The closure of entire industries, like coal and
> shipbuilding, had dramatic and fundamental consequences for the areas built
> around them. The same is true of the tragic situation in the steel industry
> today. I still believe the Thatcher Government’s abject response to
> deindustrialisation lies at the heart of many of the problems the UK faces
> today, such as low skills, worklessness, poor public health and so on. The
> UK spent a fraction of what a country like Sweden spent on education and
> retraining as traditional industries declined, and we have suffered the
> consequences.
>
> But what should the left’s response be to this sort of seismic economic
> change? The traditional response, calling for the nationalisation of
> failing industries, doesn’t solve the problem. Running an industry at a
> loss because it is subsidised by the taxpayer is not a long-term answer.
> Globalisation means it was inevitable that the UK would have to exit some
> traditional industries – I wouldn’t fancy bringing back the cotton mills to
> Stalybridge, for instance – and education and retraining to take part in
> new economic opportunities is the only solution.  But as technology and the
> growth of the MINT countries brings ever more economic disruption, as well
> as opportunity, we must have a mechanism to provide people with both
> security and a platform from which to be able to access these new
> opportunities.  Basic Income would do just that. This is the first of my
> three justifications for backing it – as a policy to cope with inevitable
> but fundamental economic change.
>
> The second justification concerns our existing welfare state.  I have
> always been taken aback by the bewildering complexity of our welfare
> system. The Child Poverty Action Group Benefits Handbook, which like many
> MPs I use to help constituents, is