date:20160215

The media frames almost every worrying social measure in terms of people,
women or children.
Rarely do you hear the data just for men or boys. Two generation of
journalists have
lectured on how to think about society by feminist academia.

For example you hear about the glass ceiling but there is also glass floor
in the cellar. You will find more homeless men down there than women. Boys
and girls commit suicide at roughly equal rates as children but the rate
begins to diverge in the teen years. The average suicide rate for men is 3
to 4 times that of women, and it increases with age. I think it is at least
10 times higher for men over age 80. But of course these inequalities
reveal nothing significant about the status of men in society. And even if
they did, we first need to get more women into math.

Harry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
>
>> Rather the fact that men have continued to be seen as more disposable is
>> in large part because of the focus of the rights women have, with a
>> simultaneous subjugation of men.
>>
>
> I see no sign of that in Japan or the U.S. On the contrary, in both
> countries more money is spent on medical problems that primarily affect
> men. Heart attacks in men are more often treated with intense care; women
> are told to go home. Traditionally, a Japanese family would feed and care
> for a boy more than a girl if they had to choose. In the 1930s they were
> sometimes forced to sell their daughters into sexual slavery. They would
> not do anything so harsh to a son. The law did not allow it, as far as I
> know. My 80-year-old widowed mother-in-law used to climb up on a steep roof
> to fix the tiles because, she said, "I wouldn't want my son to do such a
> dangerous thing."
>
> (Mind you, that drove my brother-in-law crazy. "For crying out loud DON'T
> DO THAT mom!!!" That was typical of the self abnegation of 20th century
> Japanese women. Passive-aggressive behavior was not invented by Jewish
> mamas.)
>
> Needless to say, there is zero sign that men are being subjugated in
> Japan. I don't see any sign of it in the U.S. either. It sounds like
> someone's overwrought imagination, or some nitwit who thinks taking out the
> garbage once in a while is being oppressed. Or like one of these Christian
> fundamentalists who thinks *he* is being oppressed because some guy wants
> to marry some other guy in another part of town.
>
> There is plenty of feminism these days in both counties.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Loch Kelly -- Panoramic Awareness Meditation 4:31 minute video: Rich Murray 2016.02.15

2016-02-15 Thread Rich Murray

Loch Kelly -- Panoramic Awareness Meditation 4:31 minute video: Rich Murray
2016.02.15
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2016/02/loch-kelly-panoramic-awareness.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_BIor-TPo

Published on Feb 15, 2016

In this video, Loch guides us to shift out of a small, limited sense of
self and into panoramic awareness.
We discover our spacious awake mind and return our senses to their natural
condition.
More can be found here: http://amzn.to/1QZSnG3
Category
Film & Animation
License
Standard YouTube License

Loch Kelly, M.Div., LCSW is the author of, Shift into Freedom: The Science
and Practice of Open-Hearted Awareness. 2015

He is an educator, consultant, and recognized leader in the field of
nondual meditation and psychotherapy who was asked to teach Sutra Mahamudra
by Mingyur Rinpoche and nondual realization by Adyashanti.

The founder of the Open-Hearted Awareness Institute, he is an emerging
voice in modernizing meditation, social engagement, and collaborating with
neuroscientists at Yale, UPenn and NYU to study how awareness training can
enhance compassion and wellbeing.

For more, visit lochkelly.org


Loch Kelly shares Shift Into  Freedom -- profound, practical -- Buddha at
the Gas Pump interview with Rick Archer 2 hours video 2015.08.31: Rich
Murray 2015.10.05
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/10/loch-kelly-shares-shift-into-freedom.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUaflhWenk 1:12 hour

2015.08.31  2:01:28 hours, with shift exercise at 58 minutes

also https://batgap.com/loch-kelly/

Potent expansive meditations at 58 minutes and 1:14 hour...


Shift Into Freedom, mentor Loch Kelly --  potent guide for each to
immediately choose their own way into lively practical expanded awareness:
Rich Murray 2015.09.28
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/09/shift-into-freedom-mentor-loch-kelly.html


[ see also, for value of vegan diet,

 DrMcDougall.com

ForksOverKnives.com

TrueHealthInitiative.org/#/the-solution  ]


"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to
quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food,
drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,
MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
rmfor...@gmail.com
505-819-7388 cell
619-623-3468 home
http://rmforall.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/rmforall
https://www.facebook.com/rmforallmethanol
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-murray/30/835/652
https://about.me/richmurray
rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat

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

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> You are using the naturalistic fallacy. It is like saying that because
>> child birth evolved to be risky, we shouldn't intervene with science . . .
>>
>
> I never said anything REMOTELY like that! That is absurd. I listed the
> reasons why some male occupations tend to be more dangerous than female
> occupations, at least in Europe and the U.S. (But not in India, for
> example, where elderly women weed the median in highways with cars whizzing
> by a meter away at 60 mph.)
>
>
Do you have statistics on male and females in India? Citing one example of
a woman working in a dangerous environment is just a rhetorical tactic to
take attention away from men's suffering.




> The reasons go back to history, tradition, the physical differences and
> body strength difference between men and women. They go back to what people
> are trained to do, and grow up doing. No one can just hop onto a small
> fishing boat and survive. You have to do that for years while growing up.
> Traditionally in Europe, only men did that. A women who has never done that
> -- or you or I having never done that -- is likely to be drowned the first
> day out.
>
>
 So it is a combination of "tradition" and "nature".  One is sexist and
the other is a naturalistic fallacy that men should be expected to take
greater risks with their lives just for money.





> There are also natural reasons basic to our primate nature, going back at
> least 13 million years. Every portrayal of warriors in ever culture on
> record always shows men. You can't just erase our biology. This did not
> begin in 1970 with the word "feminist." This is how most human societies
> have worked for millions of years.
>

I never said anything about erasing biology. I suspect men will always be
more likely to place themselves in dangers way but to place men at greater
harm then women simply for the sake of money is unjust. Money is a cultural
artifact it is not a big cat. There is nothing natural about risking ones
life money and men should have the freedom to say "no" to such risk taking.
Similarly the decision to have a baby is more than an evolutionary strategy
for reproducing a species. I am sure "family planning" began in prehistory
and that we stopped reproducing for the sake of reproducing a long time ago.



>
> My father grew up knowing how to handle small motor craft and sailboats,
> and how to fire up a triple expansion steam engine, like the one on the
> Titanic. Firing up was a tricky and dangerous thing to do! The sailors had
> to climb a scaffold and lubricate those engines while they were in motion,
> which was another dance with death. There will never be another generation
> of young people, men or women, who are capable of doing that. It is a lost
> art. There may be a few people who can do that but we will never again see
> thousands of them, enough to man all the freighters and troop transport
> ships of WWII. You can't just pick up such skills overnight. For that
> matter there will never be another generation of people who can write
> assembly language or Pascal code the way I can. Every generation masters
> one technology and loses another.
> 
> I
> t happens that for all of history down to the present day, men have always
> taken the lead in mastering the most dangerous occupations. One obvious
> reason is that such jobs payed better.
>
>
>

I am not judging your father's choices. He did what he thought was right
for him and his family at the time. However, today's generation of men and
boys are faced with vastly different set of cultural circumstances and
technological challenges.
Do you have any boys?





> Women also did incredibly dangerous things by our standards, not long ago.
> I mentioned the photo of the 6-foot-tall Japanese fishing woman working a
> windlass in 1949. I said "she was running as many risks as any male
> fisherman." If you don't see that, look carefully at the photo and think
> about what she is doing:
>
> 
> https://library.osu.edu/projects/bennett-in-japan/images/full/13/12.jpg
>
> The caption says: "The young woman on the left was nearly six feet tall!
> The elderly woman on the right is calling the chant to maintain the rhythm
> of movement."
>

There are 4 to 8 people turning the windlass, hauling a fishing boat out of
> the surf onto the sand. They are walking barefoot in the sand pushing heavy
> logs (handles). Think of what might happen if one or two of these people
> slips in the sand or accidentally lets go of a handle, or if a wave jerks
> the fishing boat back into the surf. The handles may whip back with enough
> force to bash a person's head in. There may be pawl to prevent that, but it
> can slip or break.
>
>
Yes, good on them. Lets cheer the women on. One more women dying
justifies ten more men dying.
 



> This may look carefree, pastoral and picturesque but no man or

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

John Berry  wrote:

> Still, plenty of extremely dangerous jobs exist for men, I live in a
> logging town.
> Now that is up there with atlantic fishing in a small boat danger wise.
>

Okay, so you live there. Do you know any loggers? Have you talked to them,
or read interviews? Think about it. Ask yourself:

Are any women doing those jobs? Probably not.

Would the men welcome women? I doubt it!

Do those jobs pay well? Way better than any job available to women. That is
one of the main reasons men don't want women doing the job. Not because
they crave danger. Generally speaking, skilled and dangerous work pays well.

Could you do that kind of work if you are not an exceptionally strong,
experienced person? Probably not. You would kill yourself. Women on average
are weaker, and they seldom get a chance to work their way up to such
experience in their teenage years. They seldom play football, boxing, or
weigh lifting. It's a cultural thing, because they can lift weights, but
they seldom do. I know some women who learned to use a chainsaw better than
I can, but not many.

This is about averages and there are always exceptions. Japanese women tend
to be smaller than American women, and way smaller than me. But there are
some who are big, and some who are very big, such as the woman wrestler
"Dumptruck" Matsumoto who could pick me up and hurl me across the room. I
expect she could cut large trees with heavy chainsaws. Probably she could
juggle chainsaws. In her prime she looked like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dump_Matsumoto#/media/File:Dump_Matsumoto.JPG

http://www.prowrestlingdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/crush21dump-asaka.jpg

Not Madam Butterfly.

I have heard she is a nice person.

- Jed

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

John Berry  wrote:

> Rather the fact that men have continued to be seen as more disposable is
> in large part because of the focus of the rights women have, with a
> simultaneous subjugation of men.
>

I see no sign of that in Japan or the U.S. On the contrary, in both
countries more money is spent on medical problems that primarily affect
men. Heart attacks in men are more often treated with intense care; women
are told to go home. Traditionally, a Japanese family would feed and care
for a boy more than a girl if they had to choose. In the 1930s they were
sometimes forced to sell their daughters into sexual slavery. They would
not do anything so harsh to a son. The law did not allow it, as far as I
know. My 80-year-old widowed mother-in-law used to climb up on a steep roof
to fix the tiles because, she said, "I wouldn't want my son to do such a
dangerous thing."

(Mind you, that drove my brother-in-law crazy. "For crying out loud DON'T
DO THAT mom!!!" That was typical of the self abnegation of 20th century
Japanese women. Passive-aggressive behavior was not invented by Jewish
mamas.)

Needless to say, there is zero sign that men are being subjugated in Japan.
I don't see any sign of it in the U.S. either. It sounds like someone's
overwrought imagination, or some nitwit who thinks taking out the garbage
once in a while is being oppressed. Or like one of these Christian
fundamentalists who thinks *he* is being oppressed because some guy wants
to marry some other guy in another part of town.

There is plenty of feminism these days in both counties.

- Jed

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

John Berry  wrote:

> The stats do support that men are victims of spousal abuse almost as much
> as women:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
>

Those stats are an oversimplification, and they not very reliable for many
reasons. They are oversimplified because they do not record the severity of
attacks. They are not reliable because many attacks are not reported, and
because attacks are not easily counted, in integer values. But there is one
form of attack that is *always* reported, and which always occurs in
integer values: murder. In the U.S., according to Wikipedia, "1,181 females
and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005." Women are
3.6 times more likely to be killed in domestic violence than men.

(By "integer" I mean it either happens or it does not; there is no middle
ground. There are, of course, assaults with intention to kill that do not
result in a fatality, but in this case we are only counting deaths.)

Granted, some of those cases were homosexual men or women killing same-sex
partners. But homosexuality is rare, so the majority are heterosexual
partners killing one another.

The ratio of women dying was higher before the invention of firearms,
because bludgeoning or beating someone to death takes a lot more strength
than shooting them. The Colt pistol was called an "equalizer" for that
reason. It made small, weak men and women as dangerous as strong men. It
made murder physically easier to carry out, and more prevalent as a result.

- Jed

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

More:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1231307/women-rape-men-a-lot-more-than-you-think-study/

And despite what you say, a woman slapping a man is often seen as funny.

A man slapping a woman is judged far more harshly.

Back to the subject of work.

I am not saying that men having the dangerous jobs began with feminism.

Rather the fact that men have continued to be seen as more disposable is in
large part because of the focus of the rights women have, with a
simultaneous subjugation of men.

And I do believe if the situation was reversed, there would have been a lot
more done about it.

Of course I do accept improvements have been made.
Still, plenty of extremely dangerous jobs exist for men, I live in a
logging town.
Now that is up there with atlantic fishing in a small boat danger wise.

John

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> That's pretty rapid growth in Feminism.
>
> It is a strange backwards label.
>
> The movement has been how women can and should become more masculine.
>
> Masculinism could be a movement where guys wear dresses, lippy and put on
> bra's and have doors opened for them at that rate.
>
> Perhaps feminism (or some variations of it) should be called "Masculinism
> for women".
>
> But now we are sooo far off topic.
>
> The stats do support that men are victims of spousal abuse almost as much
> as women:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
>
> Sure, I don't deny that on average a violent man can do more harm in a
> physical altercation with a woman than the woman can do.
> But that speaks more to the degree of injury, not the abuse in the first
> place.
>
> Here women are 40% of rapists:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5414518
>
> Those figures are from the US, but I once found UK numbers that were
> similar.
>
> I don't deny that this is surprising, hard to believe and difficult to
> take seriously.
> But sometimes we only get half the story.
>
> Society only hears what it has an appetite to listen to.
>
> The best kept secrets are the ones that keep themselves.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Recently it occurred to me that Google Ngram could be used gauge societal
>> attitudes about men and women over time.   This Google Ngram graphs the
>> usage of the words "feminist", "feminine" and "masculine" from 1700 to 2008
>> as they are used in English books.
>>
>>
>> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=feminism%2Cfeminine%2Cmasculine_start=1700_end=2008=15=3=_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfeminine%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmasculine%3B%2Cc0
>>
>> Notice the cross over around 1836 for "feminine" and "masculine" and how
>> the usage of "feminist" begins to rise sharply around 1970.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Berry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
>>> always had safer jobs than men.
>>>
>>> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>>>
>>> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>>> And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
>>> despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
>>> closer to parity that we could conceive.
>>>
>>> Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
>>> And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
>>> even-handed manner.
>>>
>>> Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.
>>>
>>> But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
>>> Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.
>>>
>>> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>>>
>>> There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
>>> that's the problem.
>>>
>>> Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the
>>> perpetrators and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
>>> Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
>>> biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.
>>>
>>> And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 John Berry  wrote:

 I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
> same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>

 There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read
 history, for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy
 equipment, factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than
 they used to be.

 Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men
 do nowadays. For

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

H LV  wrote:

You are using the naturalistic fallacy. It is like saying that because
> child birth evolved to be risky, we shouldn't intervene with science . . .
>

I never said anything REMOTELY like that! That is absurd. I listed the
reasons why some male occupations tend to be more dangerous than female
occupations, at least in Europe and the U.S. (But not in India, for
example, where elderly women weed the median in highways with cars whizzing
by a meter away at 60 mph.)

The reasons go back to history, tradition, the physical differences and
body strength difference between men and women. They go back to what people
are trained to do, and grow up doing. No one can just hop onto a small
fishing boat and survive. You have to do that for years while growing up.
Traditionally in Europe, only men did that. A women who has never done that
-- or you or I having never done that -- is likely to be drowned the first
day out.

There are also natural reasons basic to our primate nature, going back at
least 13 million years. Every portrayal of warriors in ever culture on
record always shows men. You can't just erase our biology. This did not
begin in 1970 with the word "feminist." This is how most human societies
have worked for millions of years.

My father grew up knowing how to handle small motor craft and sailboats,
and how to fire up a triple expansion steam engine, like the one on the
Titanic. Firing up was a tricky and dangerous thing to do! The sailors had
to climb a scaffold and lubricate those engines while they were in motion,
which was another dance with death. There will never be another generation
of young people, men or women, who are capable of doing that. It is a lost
art. There may be a few people who can do that but we will never again see
thousands of them, enough to man all the freighters and troop transport
ships of WWII. You can't just pick up such skills overnight. For that
matter there will never be another generation of people who can write
assembly language or Pascal code the way I can. Every generation masters
one technology and loses another. It happens that for all of history down
to the present day, men have always taken the lead in mastering the most
dangerous occupations. One obvious reason is that such jobs payed better.

Women also did incredibly dangerous things by our standards, not long ago.
I mentioned the photo of the 6-foot-tall Japanese fishing woman working a
windlass in 1949. I said "she was running as many risks as any male
fisherman." If you don't see that, look carefully at the photo and think
about what she is doing:

https://library.osu.edu/projects/bennett-in-japan/images/full/13/12.jpg

The caption says: "The young woman on the left was nearly six feet tall!
The elderly woman on the right is calling the chant to maintain the rhythm
of movement."

There are 4 to 8 people turning the windlass, hauling a fishing boat out of
the surf onto the sand. They are walking barefoot in the sand pushing heavy
logs (handles). Think of what might happen if one or two of these people
slips in the sand or accidentally lets go of a handle, or if a wave jerks
the fishing boat back into the surf. The handles may whip back with enough
force to bash a person's head in. There may be pawl to prevent that, but it
can slip or break.

This may look carefree, pastoral and picturesque but no man or women in
Japan or the U.S. would be allowed to do such dangerous work today. The
Japanese Min. of Health Labor and Welfare and the U.S. OSHA would forbid
it. That's a good thing. It is simply not true that society looks the other
way when men risk their lives at work. Not anymore it doesn't.

They still haul fishing boats out of the water in Japan, obviously. They do
it with gasoline engine capstans and steel cables.

There are still many dangerous fishing occupations in Japan. Elderly women
still dive into rough seas and fast currents too, without diving tanks.
Just wetsuits. They stay down an incredibly long time. I have often watched
them from the shore. Most people would drown trying to do that, even good
swimmers.

- Jed

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

That's pretty rapid growth in Feminism.

It is a strange backwards label.

The movement has been how women can and should become more masculine.

Masculinism could be a movement where guys wear dresses, lippy and put on
bra's and have doors opened for them at that rate.

Perhaps feminism (or some variations of it) should be called "Masculinism
for women".

But now we are sooo far off topic.

The stats do support that men are victims of spousal abuse almost as much
as women:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Sure, I don't deny that on average a violent man can do more harm in a
physical altercation with a woman than the woman can do.
But that speaks more to the degree of injury, not the abuse in the first
place.

Here women are 40% of rapists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5414518

Those figures are from the US, but I once found UK numbers that were
similar.

I don't deny that this is surprising, hard to believe and difficult to take
seriously.
But sometimes we only get half the story.

Society only hears what it has an appetite to listen to.

The best kept secrets are the ones that keep themselves.

John


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:15 PM, H LV  wrote:

> John,
>
> Recently it occurred to me that Google Ngram could be used gauge societal
> attitudes about men and women over time.   This Google Ngram graphs the
> usage of the words "feminist", "feminine" and "masculine" from 1700 to 2008
> as they are used in English books.
>
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=feminism%2Cfeminine%2Cmasculine_start=1700_end=2008=15=3=_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfeminine%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmasculine%3B%2Cc0
>
> Notice the cross over around 1836 for "feminine" and "masculine" and how
> the usage of "feminist" begins to rise sharply around 1970.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
>> always had safer jobs than men.
>>
>> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>>
>> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>> And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
>> despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
>> closer to parity that we could conceive.
>>
>> Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
>> And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
>> even-handed manner.
>>
>> Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.
>>
>> But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
>> Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.
>>
>> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>>
>> There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
>> that's the problem.
>>
>> Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the
>> perpetrators and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
>> Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
>> biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.
>>
>> And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Berry  wrote:
>>>
>>> I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
 same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
 massive push to make these jobs safer.

>>>
>>> There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history,
>>> for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
>>> factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
>>> be.
>>>
>>> Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men
>>> do nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
>>> killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
>>> the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!
>>>
>>> Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
>>> things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
>>> mines and elsewhere:
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood#/media/File:Coaltub.png
>>>
>>> Obviously, in Europe and the U.S. it was traditional for men to do
>>> dangerous jobs. The tradition lives on because, as I said, you have to grow
>>> up doing these things or you are likely to be killed. No one can just walk
>>> up and start working in a farm or on construction. You will cut your arm
>>> off with a power tool.
>>>
>>> In countries where women traditionally did some kinds of dangerous work
>>> in some industries, such as Japan, the fatality rate was

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

2016-02-15 Thread Patrick Ellul

Thank you very much.
This is a great collection.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Patrick Ellul  wrote:
>
>
>> You seem to be passionate about this topic.
>> I am too.
>> Do you know of a collection of links to essays and studies regarding it?
>>
>
> I am a big fan of the Martin Ford, who is a Leading Expert on this
> subject. See:
>
> http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
>
> He has published two books on the subject. I recommend the first one,
> which you can download for free at his website.
>
> Other resources:
>
> "The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income"
>
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
>
> "A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been
> Waiting For"
>
>
> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040832/world-changing-ideas/a-universal-basic-income-is-the-bipartisan-solution-to-poverty-weve-bee
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014#ixzz3hr7nlghY
>
> An excellent short video:
>
> "Humans Need not Apply"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

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

You are using the naturalistic fallacy. It is like saying that because
child birth evolved to be risky, we shouldn't intervene with science, but I
already said this.


harry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> I am not responding until you go back address the argument I made
>> defending my assertion that it is sexism against men.
>>
>
> I pointed out that related phenomena -- such as body weight and male
> aggressiveness -- are observed in chimpanzees and other primates. So what
> you are talking about is at least 13 million years. That predates feminism
> and "sexism against men" by a considerable margin. It predates men, for
> that matter.
>
> This is called human nature. "Primate nature" to be more scientifically
> accurate. Ascribing it to trendy modern ideas is preposterous.
>
>
> All you have done is attack my assertion.
>>
>
> All I have done is point out well know facts from anthropology, history,
> and animal behavior.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

John,

Recently it occurred to me that Google Ngram could be used gauge societal
attitudes about men and women over time.   This Google Ngram graphs the
usage of the words "feminist", "feminine" and "masculine" from 1700 to 2008
as they are used in English books.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=feminism%2Cfeminine%2Cmasculine_start=1700_end=2008=15=3=_url=t1%3B%2Cfeminism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cfeminine%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cmasculine%3B%2Cc0

Notice the cross over around 1836 for "feminine" and "masculine" and how
the usage of "feminist" begins to rise sharply around 1970.

Harry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
> always had safer jobs than men.
>
> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>
> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
> And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
> despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
> closer to parity that we could conceive.
>
> Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
> And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
> even-handed manner.
>
> Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.
>
> But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
> Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.
>
> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>
> There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
> that's the problem.
>
> Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the
> perpetrators and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
> Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
> biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.
>
> And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> John Berry  wrote:
>>
>> I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
>>> same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
>>> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>>>
>>
>> There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history,
>> for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
>> factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
>> be.
>>
>> Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men do
>> nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
>> killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
>> the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!
>>
>> Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
>> things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
>> mines and elsewhere:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood#/media/File:Coaltub.png
>>
>> Obviously, in Europe and the U.S. it was traditional for men to do
>> dangerous jobs. The tradition lives on because, as I said, you have to grow
>> up doing these things or you are likely to be killed. No one can just walk
>> up and start working in a farm or on construction. You will cut your arm
>> off with a power tool.
>>
>> In countries where women traditionally did some kinds of dangerous work
>> in some industries, such as Japan, the fatality rate was worse than men.
>>
>> Even today, women in U.S. industry suffer a great deal, although they are
>> no longer in as much danger of being killed. In Georgia and South Carolina,
>> most chicken processing plants are staffed mainly by women. Their lives are
>> not at risk, but they suffer horribly from repetitive stress syndrome. They
>> are poor because these jobs don't pay a living wage. Many are illegal
>> immigrants. So nothing is done about this problem. Also, Members of
>> Congress and state government elected officials are on record saying that
>> repetitive stress syndrome does not exist, and these women are malingering
>> and trying to get free money. I expect such elected officials have never
>> worked a day in their life at any manual job in a factory, farm or kitchen.
>> I wish I could subject them to a month working in these places -- or I wish
>> I could subject their wives and daughters to that. You would see new laws
>> and improvements overnight!
>>
>> Again, it will be a better world when robots do that sort of work. The
>> only problem is that people will go from having inadequate jobs that do not
>> pay a living wage to having no jobs at all.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

> Yet here is the question: Why does it appear that such robots are being
> created with masculine traits?  And is there any compelling reason to do so?
>

That's easy. Study the history of technology and you will see the reasons.
Automobiles began as "horseless carriages" -- vehicles that closely
resembled carriages. "Resemble" is not strong enough: they *were*
carriages, with motors bolted on. The first steamships has hulls better
suited for sailing ships. The first computer software for business
resembled the manual accounting systems it replaced. When developing new
technology, we start where the previous technology left off. We adapt the
old lock, stock and barrel. In some cases we take trouble to "impose the
limitations and problems of the old on the new" as I wrote in chapter 7 of
my book.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Since most previous warriors have been male, if you are going to make a
humanoid robot warrior, it stands to reason you will give it a male body
shape. That is with a size, proportions, arms and legs closer to the male
than the female. It would be stupid to give it wide hips, for example. That
would serve no purpose in a robot, whereas it is essential in a human
female.

Our fighting techniques, equipment and so on are keyed to the male body
type insofar as they are keyed to one sex or another. So if we are going to
adapt things such as rifles or tanks to operation by humanoids they should
be shaped like men.

In point of fact, fighting robots will soon resemble no animal. Not men, or
women, or humans. New technology usually evolves rapidly to resemble no
previous machine and no previous natural object or animal. Many early
airplanes such as Lilienthal's gliders looked like birds. The Wright
brother's airplane looked like nothing that ever flew before. Nothing
man-made or natural.

It does make sense to build robots for use in rugged outdoor environments
that resemble animals. That gives you ready-made solutions to many
problems. See, for example, the Boston Dynamics Big Dog pack animal robot,
with legs similar to those of a horse or dog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

- Jed

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

H LV  wrote:

I am not responding until you go back address the argument I made defending
> my assertion that it is sexism against men.
>

I pointed out that related phenomena -- such as body weight and male
aggressiveness -- are observed in chimpanzees and other primates. So what
you are talking about is at least 13 million years. That predates feminism
and "sexism against men" by a considerable margin. It predates men, for
that matter.

This is called human nature. "Primate nature" to be more scientifically
accurate. Ascribing it to trendy modern ideas is preposterous.

All you have done is attack my assertion.
>

All I have done is point out well know facts from anthropology, history,
and animal behavior.

- Jed

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

2016-02-15 Thread Axil Axil

Men also outnumbered women soldiers, warriors, pirates, violent criminals
and so on, in all recorded wars and battles, in every culture and era on
record. Of course there have been famous women warriors, but not many.

We can now formulate are automated warriors as women.


While fielding humanoid robot fighters is futuristic, their development is
not.  Researchers are busy creating these humanoid machines.  From the U.S.
Navy’s SAFFiR
,
who throws peat grenades at onboard ship fires, to DARPA’s “Atlas
,” who looks like a
precursor to “Battlestar Galactica’s” first generation Cylon, we have
evidence that humanoid robots are entering the defense sphere.  Yet here is
the question: Why does it appear that such robots are being created with
masculine traits?  And is there any compelling reason to do so?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
>> always had safer jobs than men.
>>
>> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>>
>
> In Europe and the U.S. women have always had safer jobs than men. This has
> nothing to do with feminism. It has been the tradition for all of recorded
> European history. It makes good sense too, because women took care of
> children. Small children were usually breastfed and would not survive
> without their mothers, whereas they could survive without a father if some
> other man supported the family (such as a grandfather or uncle).
>
> Men also outnumbered women soldiers, warriors, pirates, violent criminals
> and so on, in all recorded wars and battles, in every culture and era on
> record. Of course there have been famous women warriors, but not many.
>
>
>
>> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>>
>
> Probably not, given the fact that men on average are significantly larger
> and stronger than women, and much more naturally inclined to violence. In
> the U.S., men 88.3 kg (194.7 lb) versus women 74.7 kg (164.7 lb). That is
> another obvious reason men traditionally did dangerous or heavy labor more
> often than women. Generally speaking, all else being equal, large people
> are more likely to batter smaller people.
>
> Most primate males are larger. Chimpanzees: female (26 - 50 kg), male (35
> - 70 kg). Male chimpanzees are also more violent, engaging in warfare
> (organized killing in groups of other tribes) and individual homicide. (Or
> panicide I guess it should be.)
>
> http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/
>
>
>
>> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>>
>
> Who on earth says that is okay?!? I have never heard of such a thing.
>
> However, in England, it was legal for husbands to beat their wives and
> children until modern times. Morality and laws have changed, fortunately.
>
> Regarding industrial safety, the U.S. fatality rate was 61 deaths per
> 100,000 workers in 1915, and it is 3.3 deaths per 100,000 workers today.
> That is a tremendous improvement.
>
>
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/the-life-of-american-workers-in-1915.pdf
>
> Look at the death rate in mining in Fig. 4 here. It is asymptotically
> approaching zero. Why? Because of safety improvements, strip mining
> (instead pit mining) and because the number of miners is approaching zero.
> Mining is now done with machines.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm
>
> From 1911 through 1997, approximately 103,000 miners died at work (Figure
> 4). During 1911-1915, an average of 3329 mining-related deaths occurred per
> year among approximately 1 million miners employed annually, with an
> average annual fatality rate of 329 per 100,000 miners. During the century,
> the average annual number of workers (operators and contractors combined)
> in the mining industry has declined to approximately 356,000, and deaths
> have dropped approximately 37-fold, from 3329 to 89; injury fatality rates
> have decreased approximately 13-fold, to 25 per 100,000 during 1996-1997.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

I am not responding until you go back address the argument I made defending
my assertion that it is sexism against men.
All you have done is attack my assertion.

Harry



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
> I do not think this has anything to do with a bias against men. It is a
>>> bias against women working in certain industries.
>>>
>>
>> You have provided the usual feminist opinion and ignored my argument.
>>
>
> That's silly. Everyone knows that it would be impractical for women to
> work on most small fishing boats. For that matter, most men are incapable
> of it. I would be killed in about 5 minutes at sea on a small boat. You
> have to grow up doing it. My late father grew up with boats and ships in
> Freeport Long Island and Bermuda, and he knew dozens of ways to kill
> yourself or drown. Without that kind of background you are a dead duck in a
> small boat. If you have ever been on a small boat in a rough sea you will
> know what I mean.
>
> What we need to do is abolish fishing. It is a dance with death. It will
> never be safe. I mean abolish doing it by people. Only robots should do it.
> Better yet, grow fish in fish farms.
>
> We need to gradually automate all dangerous jobs, including jobs in
> construction.
>
> This has nothing to do with being a man or woman *per se*. It has to do
> with having years of experience doing tough, dangerous jobs. In Japan,
> women do a lot of the farming and fishing, especially diving in the Inland
> Sea. I have seen 70-year-old women handle heavy equipment, chains saws,
> small ferry boats, tractors and so on, and do many things that would kill
> you in no time if you tried to do them.
>
> The most dangerous thing that most of us do is drive cars. Self driving
> cars should greatly reduce accidents. On Saturday, on Route 78 in
> Pennsylvania there was a terrible multiple car accident, with 64 vehicles,
> 3 people killed and 74 injured. It was caused by whiteout conditions. I
> think self driving cars would have avoided this, because they would "see"
> through the snow with their radar (I hope). See:
>
>
> http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/02/nj_woman_killed_73_injured_in_major_pileup_in_pa.html
>
>
>
>> Thank you for providing the anecdotal evidence that men actually do
>> suffer. Is women's suffering some how more important?
>>
>
> Your statements are preposterous. No one wants men or women to suffer. We
> have made tremendous progress in reducing industrial accidents. Thanks to
> OSHA, common sense, and automation.
>
> No one in the industry wants people to suffer or have accidents. Even in
> 1936 it was bad for business. It was expensive for industry even then. My
> father got several years off and a paid college education because his arm
> was mangled on the ship. He got Workmen's Compensation, which he used to go
> to school.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

John Berry  wrote:

The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
> always had safer jobs than men.
>
> But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.
>

In Europe and the U.S. women have always had safer jobs than men. This has
nothing to do with feminism. It has been the tradition for all of recorded
European history. It makes good sense too, because women took care of
children. Small children were usually breastfed and would not survive
without their mothers, whereas they could survive without a father if some
other man supported the family (such as a grandfather or uncle).

Men also outnumbered women soldiers, warriors, pirates, violent criminals
and so on, in all recorded wars and battles, in every culture and era on
record. Of course there have been famous women warriors, but not many.

> There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
>

Probably not, given the fact that men on average are significantly larger
and stronger than women, and much more naturally inclined to violence. In
the U.S., men 88.3 kg (194.7 lb) versus women 74.7 kg (164.7 lb). That is
another obvious reason men traditionally did dangerous or heavy labor more
often than women. Generally speaking, all else being equal, large people
are more likely to batter smaller people.

Most primate males are larger. Chimpanzees: female (26 - 50 kg), male (35 -
70 kg). Male chimpanzees are also more violent, engaging in warfare
(organized killing in groups of other tribes) and individual homicide. (Or
panicide I guess it should be.)

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/

> A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?
>

Who on earth says that is okay?!? I have never heard of such a thing.

However, in England, it was legal for husbands to beat their wives and
children until modern times. Morality and laws have changed, fortunately.

Regarding industrial safety, the U.S. fatality rate was 61 deaths per
100,000 workers in 1915, and it is 3.3 deaths per 100,000 workers today.
That is a tremendous improvement.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/the-life-of-american-workers-in-1915.pdf

Look at the death rate in mining in Fig. 4 here. It is asymptotically
approaching zero. Why? Because of safety improvements, strip mining
(instead pit mining) and because the number of miners is approaching zero.
Mining is now done with machines.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm

>From 1911 through 1997, approximately 103,000 miners died at work (Figure
4). During 1911-1915, an average of 3329 mining-related deaths occurred per
year among approximately 1 million miners employed annually, with an
average annual fatality rate of 329 per 100,000 miners. During the century,
the average annual number of workers (operators and contractors combined)
in the mining industry has declined to approximately 356,000, and deaths
have dropped approximately 37-fold, from 3329 to 89; injury fatality rates
have decreased approximately 13-fold, to 25 per 100,000 during 1996-1997.

- Jed

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

2016-02-15 Thread Axil Axil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe8HxZ6hmLk

remote control and automated mining.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs
>
> http://phys.org/news/2016-02-intelligent-robots-threaten-millions-jobs.html
>
> Advances in artificial intelligence will soon lead to robots that are
> capable of nearly everything humans do, threatening tens of millions of
> jobs in the coming 30 years, experts warned Saturday.
>
> "We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans
> at almost any task," said Moshe Vardi.
>
> "I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon
> us: If machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what
> will humans do?"
>
> "Can the global economy adapt to greater than 50 percent unemployment?" he
> asked.
>
>
>

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

The point that I believe Harry and I am making is not that women have
always had safer jobs than men.

But rather that in modern western feminist society this is the case.

There are just as many men battered by women apparently.
And did you even know that men being raped by women actually happens
despite obvious challenges, the some stats sow the incidences might be far
closer to parity that we could conceive.

Of course more men are raped, by men in prison.
And many prisoners are not guilty, or are not being punished in an
even-handed manner.

Pendulums can swing too far sometimes in the other direction.

But I must just be a stupid man, because that's funny as the Simpsons,
Family Guy, Beer commercials, sitcoms and other media points out.

A woman can slap a man and it is seen as ok, can a man slap a woman?

There is an idea that sexism is only discrimination against women, and
that's the problem.

Same is true of racism, it isn't always white people being the perpetrators
and black (brown, yellow) people are not always the victims.
Though the US still has a bg problem with racist white cops and a
biased 'injustice' system, but these things are not all one way.

And inequality is inequality no matter which way it is pointed.

John

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> John Berry  wrote:
>
> I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the
>> same but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
>> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>>
>
> There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history,
> for goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
> factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
> be.
>
> Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men do
> nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
> killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
> the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!
>
> Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
> things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
> mines and elsewhere:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood#/media/File:Coaltub.png
>
> Obviously, in Europe and the U.S. it was traditional for men to do
> dangerous jobs. The tradition lives on because, as I said, you have to grow
> up doing these things or you are likely to be killed. No one can just walk
> up and start working in a farm or on construction. You will cut your arm
> off with a power tool.
>
> In countries where women traditionally did some kinds of dangerous work in
> some industries, such as Japan, the fatality rate was worse than men.
>
> Even today, women in U.S. industry suffer a great deal, although they are
> no longer in as much danger of being killed. In Georgia and South Carolina,
> most chicken processing plants are staffed mainly by women. Their lives are
> not at risk, but they suffer horribly from repetitive stress syndrome. They
> are poor because these jobs don't pay a living wage. Many are illegal
> immigrants. So nothing is done about this problem. Also, Members of
> Congress and state government elected officials are on record saying that
> repetitive stress syndrome does not exist, and these women are malingering
> and trying to get free money. I expect such elected officials have never
> worked a day in their life at any manual job in a factory, farm or kitchen.
> I wish I could subject them to a month working in these places -- or I wish
> I could subject their wives and daughters to that. You would see new laws
> and improvements overnight!
>
> Again, it will be a better world when robots do that sort of work. The
> only problem is that people will go from having inadequate jobs that do not
> pay a living wage to having no jobs at all.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-02-15 Thread Craig Haynie



On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 20:33 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I am glad to see people paying attention to this issue. I hope it is
> not politicized. Many people feel that that work is a moral issue;
> that able-bodied people who do not work should not be given
> sustenance. This was a reasonable view in the past, but now that
> robots are making rapid progress it is gradually becoming
> unreasonable. We need to adjust morality to fit the technology of our
> time. What is moral in one era may not be in the next.
> 
> 
> - Jed
> 
It will definitely be politicized. This goes to the heart of capitalism.

Craig

>

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

John Berry  wrote:

I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the same
> but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
> massive push to make these jobs safer.
>

There *has been* a massive push to make *all* jobs safer! Read history, for
goodness sake. Read about mining. Look at ships, heavy equipment,
factories, farming. Injuries and fatalities are far rarer than they used to
be.

Women working in 19th century factories died at a higher rate than men do
nowadays. For that matter, children working in factories and mines were
killed so often that some British mines had a rubber-stamp form to fill in
the names and pay off the parents. A rubber-stamp!

Look up "19th century child labor" images on Google, and you will see
things like this of both boys and girls doing dangerous heavy labor in
mines and elsewhere:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood#/media/File:Coaltub.png

Obviously, in Europe and the U.S. it was traditional for men to do
dangerous jobs. The tradition lives on because, as I said, you have to grow
up doing these things or you are likely to be killed. No one can just walk
up and start working in a farm or on construction. You will cut your arm
off with a power tool.

In countries where women traditionally did some kinds of dangerous work in
some industries, such as Japan, the fatality rate was worse than men.

Even today, women in U.S. industry suffer a great deal, although they are
no longer in as much danger of being killed. In Georgia and South Carolina,
most chicken processing plants are staffed mainly by women. Their lives are
not at risk, but they suffer horribly from repetitive stress syndrome. They
are poor because these jobs don't pay a living wage. Many are illegal
immigrants. So nothing is done about this problem. Also, Members of
Congress and state government elected officials are on record saying that
repetitive stress syndrome does not exist, and these women are malingering
and trying to get free money. I expect such elected officials have never
worked a day in their life at any manual job in a factory, farm or kitchen.
I wish I could subject them to a month working in these places -- or I wish
I could subject their wives and daughters to that. You would see new laws
and improvements overnight!

Again, it will be a better world when robots do that sort of work. The only
problem is that people will go from having inadequate jobs that do not pay
a living wage to having no jobs at all.

- Jed

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

I wrote:

> That's silly. Everyone knows that it would be impractical for women to
> work on most small fishing boats.
>

Not quite true. Women can work on fishing boats with mostly women crews.
You see them in Japan. Such as:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DFC7KR/female-divers-shinjuto-island-where-mr-mikimoto-started-growing-white-DFC7KR.jpg

These are photogenic women. They are wearing wet suits. They used to dive
naked, which was even more photogenic. That was a little before my time.
Wetsuits were introduced in 1964.

http://gakuran.com/ama-the-pearl-diving-mermaids-of-japan/

On the Inland Sea, women often work on boats that are so small they come
back to port every day. Husbands and wives often work together. They did in
the old days, anyway. In the 1960s families used to live and work on small
boats in the Inland Sea. The kids would run around and playing on boats,
climbing the rigging and carrying groceries up single-board gangplanks, in
ways that would NEVER, EVER be allowed today. It would be unthinkable.

It still gives me the heebie-jeebies watching those kids. They commute to
school on motorboats. They drive cars at high speed on dirt roads because
there are no policemen on small isolated islands in the Inland Sea.

Here is a 6-foot-tall Japanese fishing woman working a windlass in 1949.
She was running as many risks as any male fisherman. I expect she was as
tough as nails. I knew a lot women in that part of the world in 1974. They
were feminine but tough. They were remarkable people. (Plus, most Japanese
people could barely understand them, since their dialect was 100 years out
of date. I was one of the few native speakers of English who can understand
them.)

https://library.osu.edu/projects/bennett-in-japan/images/full/13/12.jpg

Lots of photos of life as it was:

https://library.osu.edu/projects/bennett-in-japan/2_13_photos.html

- Jed

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

I think if as many women were killed at jobs, especially if it was the same
but reverse of the actual m/f ratio, there would have long ago been a
massive push to make these jobs safer.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
> If the experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day
>> welfare programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
>> consolidated into it.
>>
>
> That should have been "unemployment compensation," not "workers' comp."
>
> Eric
>
>

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

2016-02-15 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

If the experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day
> welfare programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
> consolidated into it.
>

That should have been "unemployment compensation," not "workers' comp."

Eric

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

H LV  wrote:

>
>
I do not think this has anything to do with a bias against men. It is a
>> bias against women working in certain industries.
>>
>
> You have provided the usual feminist opinion and ignored my argument.
>

That's silly. Everyone knows that it would be impractical for women to work
on most small fishing boats. For that matter, most men are incapable of it.
I would be killed in about 5 minutes at sea on a small boat. You have to
grow up doing it. My late father grew up with boats and ships in Freeport
Long Island and Bermuda, and he knew dozens of ways to kill yourself or
drown. Without that kind of background you are a dead duck in a small boat.
If you have ever been on a small boat in a rough sea you will know what I
mean.

What we need to do is abolish fishing. It is a dance with death. It will
never be safe. I mean abolish doing it by people. Only robots should do it.
Better yet, grow fish in fish farms.

We need to gradually automate all dangerous jobs, including jobs in
construction.

This has nothing to do with being a man or woman *per se*. It has to do
with having years of experience doing tough, dangerous jobs. In Japan,
women do a lot of the farming and fishing, especially diving in the Inland
Sea. I have seen 70-year-old women handle heavy equipment, chains saws,
small ferry boats, tractors and so on, and do many things that would kill
you in no time if you tried to do them.

The most dangerous thing that most of us do is drive cars. Self driving
cars should greatly reduce accidents. On Saturday, on Route 78 in
Pennsylvania there was a terrible multiple car accident, with 64 vehicles,
3 people killed and 74 injured. It was caused by whiteout conditions. I
think self driving cars would have avoided this, because they would "see"
through the snow with their radar (I hope). See:

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/02/nj_woman_killed_73_injured_in_major_pileup_in_pa.html

> Thank you for providing the anecdotal evidence that men actually do
> suffer. Is women's suffering some how more important?
>

Your statements are preposterous. No one wants men or women to suffer. We
have made tremendous progress in reducing industrial accidents. Thanks to
OSHA, common sense, and automation.

No one in the industry wants people to suffer or have accidents. Even in
1936 it was bad for business. It was expensive for industry even then. My
father got several years off and a paid college education because his arm
was mangled on the ship. He got Workmen's Compensation, which he used to go
to school.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Orbo power packs

2016-02-15 Thread Bob Higgins

I read through the Burgener patent and must admit that I don't quite get
where he is saying that he gets the anomalous power and how much he gets.
The described ferroelectric materials he lists are all ceramics.  Most of
these are both piezoelectric and pyroelectric.  He calls for specific donor
and acceptor metal electrodes, so it seems like he is trying to make a
diode at the same time.  It could well be that the electricity seen from
his devices is related to rectified piezoelectricly produced waveforms.

OTOH, Steorn's devices are cylindrical with radial leads.  The power pack
element seems to be limited to about 5.5V like 2 supercaps in series.  My
first questions is, "could this be an effect that he discovered that is a
characteristic of common supercaps?"  As I mentioned previously, the
cylindrical packaging suggests that it was made as a flat structure that is
rolled up to form the cylinder.  That type of forming process would not be
applicable to ceramics.

It seemed pretty clear to me that his video was demonstrating energy coming
from somewhere, and not the 9V batteries.  Obviously there could have been
some smoke and mirrors preventing the video watcher from observing the true
source of the energy.  However, if we take the demo as what it appears to
be, the blue cylindrical power pack element seems to be showing more energy
taken out than put in.  Of course, batteries come in cylindrical cells and
there was no demonstration of more power out than a conventional
cylindrical battery cell could have provided.

If it were me, I would be interested in additional data.  I am *not*
inclined to write this technology off as scam without further details.  Nor
am I ready to say it is an over-unity device.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Do you have any comment on the Burgener patent in the context of Orbo?
>
>
>
> There are anomalies in circuits which seem to turn up whenever batteries,
> supercaps and electrets are combined. This is a lure, and Steorn bit - but
> no one has pulled it off before in a long term device. I have a feeling
> that Steorn saw a real anomaly but jumped the gun on bringing it to market
> too soon.
>
>
>
> It goes back to having both types of charge carriers (electron and ionic)
> and both types of current (conduction current and displacement current),
> combined with a constant source of phantom voltage from the electret, and
> in the case of Burgener – both a ferroelectric and ferromagnetic
> juxtaposition.
>
>
>
> Even with the problems which have turned up, I am less skeptical than
> before that there is a real energy anomaly here. This does not mean that
> Steorn is capable of harnessing it, since they have demonstrated no level
> of high skill or acumen (other than in fundraising) so the door is still
> open for others with the proper skills.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> It appears from the Steorn video description pointed to by Jones below
> that the the "power packs" behave as an unusual capacitor.  The device
> appears to have separate charge and discharge modes.  In charge mode the
> capacitor-like "power-packs" are "charged" from a high voltage source (2x9V
> battery with series 1Mohm resistor).  While charging, the capacitance
> appears to be very low, call it Cc, and it doesn't take much Coulombic
> charge (not many electrons) to reach a voltage of, say 5V.  Then the
> capacitor-like "power pack" is switched to a load.  In discharge, the
> capacitance, Cd, appears to be much higher than Cc, allowing more Coulombic
> charge (more electrons) to be taken out before the device reaches its
> minimum discharge voltage.  This is a quite unusual [classically impossible
> over-unity] device, which still may be related to an electret.  It appears
> that the capacitor-like "power pack" elements are of "jelly roll"
> construction due to their cylindrical form factor.
>
> If the "power pack" devices truly work in this fashion, I can easily see
> how over-unity energy is delivered.
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> Prototypes have been shown. Not sure of current status as there were legal
> disputes involved. Eye witnesses under NDA have seen it producing
> electrical power. There is a chance that “something like this” is
> involved in the Steorn device (to the extent that either device actually
> works over an extended period) but I doubt it - since Steorn doesn’t seem
> to work, firstly - and secondly doesn’t have a magnetic field. Here is an
> update:
>
>
> http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/02/new-video-reveals-ocube-components-describes-problems/
>
>
>

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

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> This seems like an appropriate moment to bring up an important and
>> neglected men's issue. In the US, men comprise  93% of workplace deaths.
>>
>
> I do not think this has anything to do with a bias against men. It is a
> bias against women working in certain industries.
>

You have provided the usual feminist opinion and ignored my argument.



> The two most dangerous jobs in the U.S. are working on fishing boats, and
> working as a nighttime gas station or convenience store cashier. Other
> dangerous jobs include things like working in mines, heavy industry,
> slaughterhouses, building trades and so on. People I know who have been in
> building trades for decades all have scars to show for it, and most of them
> have seen people maimed or killed. Women seldom work on fishing boats, or
> in heavy industry, mining etc.
>
>
It takes a very strong person to work on a fishing boat. Women on average
> are somewhat less strong than men so you would not expect to see as many
> women on fishing boats even if there were no bias and even if it were not
> awkward for them to be crammed into small boats for weeks.
>
>

> Modern industry is nowhere near as dangerous as it used to be. In the
> 1930s, my father was a fireman in the merchant marine, shipping out of New
> York to South America. He said there was not one voyage where he did not
> see someone at the docks killed or maimed. He himself was maimed after 6
> years, nearly losing his life. His arm was crushed. It kept him out of
> combat in WWII, so I guess in a sense it saved his life. The ship he was on
> is now at the bottom of the Atlantic, sunk by a German U Boat. He would
> have gone down with it.
>
>
Thank you for providing the anecdotal evidence that men actually do
suffer. Is women's suffering some how more important?

Harry

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

Patrick Ellul  wrote:


> You seem to be passionate about this topic.
> I am too.
> Do you know of a collection of links to essays and studies regarding it?
>

I am a big fan of the Martin Ford, who is a Leading Expert on this subject.
See:

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

He has published two books on the subject. I recommend the first one, which
you can download for free at his website.

Other resources:

"The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

"A Universal Basic Income Is The Bipartisan Solution To Poverty We've Been
Waiting For"

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040832/world-changing-ideas/a-universal-basic-income-is-the-bipartisan-solution-to-poverty-weve-bee

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

An excellent short video:

"Humans Need not Apply"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

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

Eric,
Many wise words.
I agree with a slow implementation but I thing before any implementation
can take place we need to have a dramatic change of attitude.
An understanding of that borders are no good protection is an insight we
need to acquire. With our modern technology the world gets smaller and
smaller and to believe that borders protect is an illusion. Borders are
just arbitrary obstacles. Even here implementation can be slow but the
attitude should be refreshed quickly.

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> I agree that the argument that the threat of starvation and economic
> marginalization can be useful for motivating people to do something with
> their lives is unpersuasive now, if it ever was persuasive.  I don't think
> people should face starvation, or even go without dental care, as a result
> of being lazy and unambitious, let alone mentally ill, disabled or
> physically handicapped.  I am hopeful that this awareness is starting to
> become widespread, even if it will be a while (hundreds of years?) before
> something practical is done with it.
>
> As the conditions during the industrial revolution show, Anglo-Saxon
> countries in general, and the US in particular, have an above average level
> of tolerance for the suffering of their own people. So I would not
> necessarily bet money on anything happening anytime soon in the US.  It
> seems just as likely that we could let things get pretty dystopian.
>
> What is also worrisome is what will happen to political power with
> narrowing economic opportunity.  You cannot even pretend to have a level
> playing field, with equal opportunity for all, when economic
> marginalization begins to affect a large number of young people, as well as
> a significant portion of the adult population, as structural changes
> gradually transform the present economy into something we can only guess
> at.  With profits currently accruing to a small portion of the total
> population, politics will also go in an unknown direction, no doubt for the
> worse.
>
> If a basic income can help with a little of this, I think we should try
> some small experiments to test it out over several years. I'm for
> piecemeal, incremental change, carried out a little at a time.  If the
> experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day welfare
> programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
> consolidated into it.  We should not let ideology get in the way of this
> kind of experiment.  But at any rate economies are things that are
> supported and controlled by societies, and they are free to modify the
> rules however they want. The only thing limiting this beyond political will
> are any unintended consequences that follow, which is part of the reason
> you make changes in small batches rather than in one go.
>
> Eric
>
>

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

H LV  wrote:

> This seems like an appropriate moment to bring up an important and
> neglected men's issue. In the US, men comprise  93% of workplace deaths.
>

I do not think this has anything to do with a bias against men. It is a
bias against women working in certain industries. The two most dangerous
jobs in the U.S. are working on fishing boats, and working as a nighttime
gas station or convenience store cashier. Other dangerous jobs include
things like working in mines, heavy industry, slaughterhouses, building
trades and so on. People I know who have been in building trades for
decades all have scars to show for it, and most of them have seen people
maimed or killed. Women seldom work on fishing boats, or in heavy industry,
mining etc.

It takes a very strong person to work on a fishing boat. Women on average
are somewhat less strong than men so you would not expect to see as many
women on fishing boats even if there were no bias and even if it were not
awkward for them to be crammed into small boats for weeks.

Modern industry is nowhere near as dangerous as it used to be. In the
1930s, my father was a fireman in the merchant marine, shipping out of New
York to South America. He said there was not one voyage where he did not
see someone at the docks killed or maimed. He himself was maimed after 6
years, nearly losing his life. His arm was crushed. It kept him out of
combat in WWII, so I guess in a sense it saved his life. The ship he was on
is now at the bottom of the Atlantic, sunk by a German U Boat. He would
have gone down with it.

- Jed

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

No Jed,
I am not arguing with you about who read more history.
If you think you KNOW that today is far better than another time then be it
so. I still think that depends on what you think is important and if you
can satisfy basic needs.
I am sure Hover was a good guy.
Yes, Jed some laws were well enforced. However, due to lack of
communication and transportation there were plenty of opportunities to
avoid the law. Not so easy when you have a video camera in each street
corner.

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> I do believe you have a house inPA and that it is welluilt following
>> rules from 1790.
>>
>
> Actually, the guy who rebuilt it said that the stonework in the barn was
> incompetent and did not meet the standards of 1790. He said "whoever did
> this should have been ridden out of town on a rail." (The town being
> Gettysburg.) But it did hold up. He jacked up the building and rebuilt the
> inside wall with stone taken 100 yards away. So whoever did it in 1790
> could have done it right, as he pointed out.
>
>
>
>> I did not read much of your other examples of poor regulations. I
>> actually try to say that old obsolete laws are still in the law books as
>> there is no interest of implement changes.
>>
>
> You are completely wrong about that. Laws governing industrial standards
> are frequently updated to keep up with technology. The ASME, the ASTM, NIST
> and other organizations issue hundreds of revised and modernized standards
> every year. That is why computer plugs plug in without shorting and burning
> up the equipment. (In the 1970s I sometimes plugged in cables which *did*
> short out and burn up the equipment.)
>
> Let me put it this way: I am not nostalgic for the RS232 standard.
>
> Without such standards, modern technology would be impossible.
>
>
>
>> The degree of freedom one generation compared to another is hard to be
>> categorical about.
>>
>
> That is completely wrong! It is dead-easy to be categorical about, or to
> compare. Just read the laws and newspaper accounts from the past. Read any
> novel about the past, or diary. You will see that we are living in the
> golden age of personal autonomy. In no previous era, in no nation, were
> people as free to live and do as they please as we are. Just the fact that
> homosexual couples are allowed to marry would be mind-blowing to anyone in
> 1980. In 1968 there were many places where heterosexual couples could not
> divorce. Until the Loving versus Virginia judgement, people of different
> races could not marry in many states. Not just black and white people; in
> some states I would not have been allowed to marry a Japanese American or
> native Japanese. I would have been arrested for checking into a motel with
> a person of another race. Under the Cable act of 1922, anywhere in the U.S.
> I could have been stripped of my citizenship and forced to move to another
> country. See:
>
>
> http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/Interracial-Marriage-Laws-History-Timeline.htm
>
>
>
>> If basic needs were not met then the freedom was not real. Rules 150
>> years ago could often not be enforced so the reality was the same . . .
>>
>
> They were most definitely enforced. These were not dead letter laws at
> all. You have no knowledge of history if you think that laws relating to
> race, sex and so on were not enforced.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-02-15 Thread Eric Walker

I agree that the argument that the threat of starvation and economic
marginalization can be useful for motivating people to do something with
their lives is unpersuasive now, if it ever was persuasive.  I don't think
people should face starvation, or even go without dental care, as a result
of being lazy and unambitious, let alone mentally ill, disabled or
physically handicapped.  I am hopeful that this awareness is starting to
become widespread, even if it will be a while (hundreds of years?) before
something practical is done with it.

As the conditions during the industrial revolution show, Anglo-Saxon
countries in general, and the US in particular, have an above average level
of tolerance for the suffering of their own people. So I would not
necessarily bet money on anything happening anytime soon in the US.  It
seems just as likely that we could let things get pretty dystopian.

What is also worrisome is what will happen to political power with
narrowing economic opportunity.  You cannot even pretend to have a level
playing field, with equal opportunity for all, when economic
marginalization begins to affect a large number of young people, as well as
a significant portion of the adult population, as structural changes
gradually transform the present economy into something we can only guess
at.  With profits currently accruing to a small portion of the total
population, politics will also go in an unknown direction, no doubt for the
worse.

If a basic income can help with a little of this, I think we should try
some small experiments to test it out over several years. I'm for
piecemeal, incremental change, carried out a little at a time.  If the
experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day welfare
programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
consolidated into it.  We should not let ideology get in the way of this
kind of experiment.  But at any rate economies are things that are
supported and controlled by societies, and they are free to modify the
rules however they want. The only thing limiting this beyond political will
are any unintended consequences that follow, which is part of the reason
you make changes in small batches rather than in one go.

Eric

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

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> See the licensing system for different trades, which is close to medieval
>> rules for trade.
>>
>
> Not just close; they are the same in many instances, for good reason.
> People in medieval times were not fools. In another example, many building
> codes in Pennsylvania are the same today as they were in 1790.
>
>
> I understand that there need to be requirements for certain services. The
>> question is who is capable of judging - I for sure know government is
>> totally incapable.
>>
>
> All of these standards are set by industry, not by government. The
> government enforces standards which are set by organizations such as the
> ASME. Many laws simply reference ASME publications saying that products
> "will meet these standards." So this statement makes no sense. It is a
> tautology:
>
>

This seems like an appropriate moment to bring up an important and
neglected men's issue. In the US, men comprise  93% of workplace deaths. (I
think it is even higher if you include suicides triggered by work related
problems). Why is this considered socially acceptable? When I ask the
question I am not calling for more women to endure jobs where they are more
likely die. Evidently society regards men's lives as less valuable then
women's lives. I will argue that this is a case of systematic sexism
towards men.

Not so long it was common for women to die during child birth. However, it
was decided that it was socially unacceptable for women to endure such
risks so money and time was invested on reducing fatalities. Before this
change of attitude, I suspect most people were resigned to accept the rate
fatalities as part of the natural order or an expression of God's will. I
think most people have similar attitude regarding work related deaths among
men. Arguments about evolution
are usually trotted out to justify the difference. The argument is men
evolved to take such risk takers and women evolved to avoid such risks so
it is part of the natural order that men should die at such a high rate.
But this is a naturalistic fallacy. It would be like saying that since
pregnancy evolved to be dangerous nothing should be done to reduce the
risk. In the case of male work related deaths a great deal can and should
be done. For starters a lot more money should be spent on the enforcement
of workplace standards. Are men worth it? Hell yeah!

Harry

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

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> In medieval times there were rules decided by people in a certain trade if
> they would allow any new person to establish business in that trade. They
> were supposed to be able to see the need for more resources. Guess what?
> They made competition non-existent.
>

That is true. Such laws continued in force in the US up until the 1970s
when most of them were abolished. For example, there were laws against
advertising your services as a lawyer, and laws that forbid you from
mentioning a competing product in an advertisement. These were abolished.
Nowadays you see lawyers advertised on the sides of buses, and
advertisements for soap no longer refer to "brand X."

However, other rules originally set by guilds in medieval times are still
in force, such as rules about stone masonry and building materials. If they
were not enforced, buildings would collapse more often.

> Today the licensing has ambition to protect the consumer. In reality it is
> just no protection but plenty of job opportunity and income to government.
>

Government derives little money from licensing. In some cases not enough to
cover the cost of implementing the licensing examinations and codes.

> You say 'for good reasons' which reasons are those good one. That rules
> has not changed and that we have laws that cannot be enforced as they
> should have been eliminated 50 years ago is hardly a good reason.
>

Many laws have been changed and eliminated over the past 50 years,
especially in the 1970s. However many other laws have been preserved.
Anticompetitive laws and restraint of trade has been largely eliminated.
The trucking industry, airlines, telecommunications and much else have been
deregulated. This is why airfares are so cheap nowadays.

There is a great deal more restrictions over pollution than there used to
be. On the other hand, there is less control over drugs. You can now sell
just about any quack cure with no inspection or certification whatever, and
no control over what is in the pill, just by declaring it an "alternative"
food additive or "herbal medicine" instead of a drug. This is why dangerous
concoctions have flooded drugstores in recent years.

> You have never been involved in the setting of industry standards I can
> hear.
>

I have not, but as I mentioned my late father did this. He and others in
government did the best they could under the circumstances. They were much
better at it than you seem to think, and the people in industry they worked
with appreciated their efforts.

Also, I read about Herbert Hoover, who was the patron saint of industrial
standards. He was no left wing revolutionary. He did not believe in an
activist government, to say the least.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Orbo power packs

2016-02-15 Thread Bob Cook

Jones--
I have followed the discussion of the Orbo technology and have trouble 
swallowing the idea that the energy is coming from ZPE source.  I still favor 
the ideas that have a clear balance of energy types—total energy—that I 
consider are different types of potential energy in our real 4-D system. 
I did learn about electrets from the Orbo discussions, but doubt that their 
“phantom” voltage is from the ZPE source. 
I find the discussion of the coupling between the spin form of energy in the 
nucleus and the electrons and the magnetic and electric fields in the patent 
informative informative.   And it may be pertinent to a coupling mechanism 
active in LENR.  
I do not consider that the plasma conditions in the Icelandic/Swedish laser 
experiments labeled LENR are anything like the Pd or Ni condensed matter LENR, 
in that the plasma does not provide a coherent system to allow nature to 
manipulate the various potential energies.   I consider a coherent system with 
its multiple routes for conserving angular momentum and distribution of spin 
energy in the small increments of one/integer quanta at a time is all-important 
in the feature of LENR that seems to eliminate high energy radiation.  
The plasma system is basically a 2 particle interaction akin to standard high 
energy physics models of interactions.   Energy and linear momentum is handled 
in the “2-body” interactions, but conservation of angular momentum is not so 
easy where you do not have a method for mixing orbital angular momentum with 
intrinsic spin to the orbital option and its associated phonic kinetic energy.  
 
Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Orbo power packs

Bob,

 

Do you have any comment on the Burgener patent in the context of Orbo?

 

There are anomalies in circuits which seem to turn up whenever batteries, 
supercaps and electrets are combined. This is a lure, and Steorn bit - but no 
one has pulled it off before in a long term device. I have a feeling that 
Steorn saw a real anomaly but jumped the gun on bringing it to market too soon. 

 

It goes back to having both types of charge carriers (electron and ionic) and 
both types of current (conduction current and displacement current), combined 
with a constant source of phantom voltage from the electret, and in the case of 
Burgener – both a ferroelectric and ferromagnetic juxtaposition.

 

Even with the problems which have turned up, I am less skeptical than before 
that there is a real energy anomaly here. This does not mean that Steorn is 
capable of harnessing it, since they have demonstrated no level of high skill 
or acumen (other than in fundraising) so the door is still open for others with 
the proper skills.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

It appears from the Steorn video description pointed to by Jones below that the 
the "power packs" behave as an unusual capacitor.  The device appears to have 
separate charge and discharge modes.  In charge mode the capacitor-like 
"power-packs" are "charged" from a high voltage source (2x9V battery with 
series 1Mohm resistor).  While charging, the capacitance appears to be very 
low, call it Cc, and it doesn't take much Coulombic charge (not many electrons) 
to reach a voltage of, say 5V.  Then the capacitor-like "power pack" is 
switched to a load.  In discharge, the capacitance, Cd, appears to be much 
higher than Cc, allowing more Coulombic charge (more electrons) to be taken out 
before the device reaches its minimum discharge voltage.  This is a quite 
unusual [classically impossible over-unity] device, which still may be related 
to an electret.  It appears that the capacitor-like "power pack" elements are 
of "jelly roll" construction due to their cylindrical form factor.  

If the "power pack" devices truly work in this fashion, I can easily see how 
over-unity energy is delivered.

 

Jones Beene wrote:

Prototypes have been shown. Not sure of current status as there were legal 
disputes involved. Eye witnesses under NDA have seen it producing electrical 
power. There is a chance that “something like this” is involved in the Steorn 
device (to the extent that either device actually works over an extended 
period) but I doubt it - since Steorn doesn’t seem to work, firstly - and 
secondly doesn’t have a magnetic field. Here is an update: 

http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/02/new-video-reveals-ocube-components-describes-problems/

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

Jed,
I do believe you have a house inPA and that it is welluilt following rules
from 1790.
I am fine with your father was a good member of NIST if you say so.
I did not read much of your other examples of poor regulations. I actually
try to say that old obsolete laws are still in the law books as there is no
interest of implement changes. Instead there are in addition to people's
normal resistance to change a bureaucratic force added, when it comes to
working with old laws.
The degree of freedom one generation compared to another is hard to be
categorical about. If basic needs were not met then the freedom was not
real. Rules 150 years ago could often not be enforced so the reality was
the same, some laws made a difference and others were just shadow boxing. I
do not care. I would like to look forward and try to find ways to implement
the new and changing world to our society. (I know I brought in a word
about medieval trade practices. I thought that everyone agreed they were no
good. Obviously you believe different and therefore the example was no good
for you. )

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> In another example, many building codes in Pennsylvania are the same
>> today as they were in 1790.
>>
>
> I happen to know this because I own a house in the barn in Pennsylvania
> which were constructed in 1790. The man who reconstructed them is an expert
> in colonial and early American buildings, stone masonry and building codes.
>
>
>
>> Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
>> standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
>> expert input from industry.
>>
>
> I know this because my late father was a top official at NIST (then called
> the national Bureau of Standards).
>
> The main difference between the present day and the colonial period and
> the 18th and 19th century is that today people have far more autonomy and
> freedom to do as they please. Guilds, industry and government have much
> less control over our lives. Right-wing people often say just the opposite,
> but this is because they have no knowledge of history. I will give four
> examples, but you can find hundreds more in any history book:
>
> Personal appearance was much more controlled. In New England in the 1840s,
> beards were out of fashion. That is to say, men who wore beards were
> sometimes accosted by crowds, beaten, forcibly shaved and jailed. In the
> 1960s long hair was unfashionable and a sign of antiwar protest. On some
> occasions young men with long hair were treated in a similar way, but this
> was rare, rather than being the rule.
>
> Until 1963 people's sex lives were far more restricted by laws than they
> are today. Adultery, homosexuality, contraception and pornography and much
> else were forbidden. Divorce was forbidden or difficult. Interracial
> marriage was forbidden in many states until 1967.
>
> In the 18th and early 19th century, hostels and hotels in the U.S. had to
> meet various strict, detailed standards. They had to provide fixed amounts
> of specific foods to travelers; and the room charges were fixed in a narrow
> range. The specifics varied by state but they were a matter of law.
> Nowadays, the only thing covered by law in a hotel or motel is the charge
> per room and the fire escape route posted on the door.
>
> Parents in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century had little control over
> the education or upbringing of their children. When parents did not teach
> their children how to read by age 6, or when parents set a bad example, or
> did not take the children to church, local governments could -- and did --
> take the children away and assign them to foster parents. The notion that
> parents have the right to raise their children away from society by their
> own lights, or to home-school them, is from the 1960s. It did not exist in
> the U.S. before that, for good reason. In my opinion, and it should not be
> allowed today. Although I will grant that government had too much power in
> 1642. For details, see:
>
> Massachusetts Bay School Law (1642)
>
> "Forasmuch as the good education of children is of singular behoof and
> benefit to any Common-wealth; and wheras many parents & masters are too
> indulgent and negligent of their duty in that kinde. It is therfore ordered
> that the Select men of everie town, in the severall precincts and quarters
> where they dwell, shall have a vigilant eye over their brethren &
> neighbours, to see, first that none of them shall suffer so much barbarism
> in any of their families as not to indeavour to teach by themselves or
> others, their children & apprentices so much learning as may inable them
> perfectly to read the english tongue, & knowledge

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

I wrote:

> In another example, many building codes in Pennsylvania are the same today
> as they were in 1790.
>

I happen to know this because I own a house in the barn in Pennsylvania
which were constructed in 1790. The man who reconstructed them is an expert
in colonial and early American buildings, stone masonry and building codes.

> Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
> standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
> expert input from industry.
>

I know this because my late father was a top official at NIST (then called
the national Bureau of Standards).

The main difference between the present day and the colonial period and the
18th and 19th century is that today people have far more autonomy and
freedom to do as they please. Guilds, industry and government have much
less control over our lives. Right-wing people often say just the opposite,
but this is because they have no knowledge of history. I will give four
examples, but you can find hundreds more in any history book:

Personal appearance was much more controlled. In New England in the 1840s,
beards were out of fashion. That is to say, men who wore beards were
sometimes accosted by crowds, beaten, forcibly shaved and jailed. In the
1960s long hair was unfashionable and a sign of antiwar protest. On some
occasions young men with long hair were treated in a similar way, but this
was rare, rather than being the rule.

Until 1963 people's sex lives were far more restricted by laws than they
are today. Adultery, homosexuality, contraception and pornography and much
else were forbidden. Divorce was forbidden or difficult. Interracial
marriage was forbidden in many states until 1967.

In the 18th and early 19th century, hostels and hotels in the U.S. had to
meet various strict, detailed standards. They had to provide fixed amounts
of specific foods to travelers; and the room charges were fixed in a narrow
range. The specifics varied by state but they were a matter of law.
Nowadays, the only thing covered by law in a hotel or motel is the charge
per room and the fire escape route posted on the door.

Parents in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century had little control over
the education or upbringing of their children. When parents did not teach
their children how to read by age 6, or when parents set a bad example, or
did not take the children to church, local governments could -- and did --
take the children away and assign them to foster parents. The notion that
parents have the right to raise their children away from society by their
own lights, or to home-school them, is from the 1960s. It did not exist in
the U.S. before that, for good reason. In my opinion, and it should not be
allowed today. Although I will grant that government had too much power in
1642. For details, see:

Massachusetts Bay School Law (1642)

"Forasmuch as the good education of children is of singular behoof and
benefit to any Common-wealth; and wheras many parents & masters are too
indulgent and negligent of their duty in that kinde. It is therfore ordered
that the Select men of everie town, in the severall precincts and quarters
where they dwell, shall have a vigilant eye over their brethren &
neighbours, to see, first that none of them shall suffer so much barbarism
in any of their families as not to indeavour to teach by themselves or
others, their children & apprentices so much learning as may inable them
perfectly to read the english tongue, & knowledge of the Capital Lawes:
upon penaltie of twentie shillings for each neglect therin. Also that all
masters of families doe once a week (at the least) catechize their children
and servants in the grounds & principles of Religion, & if any be unable to
doe so much: that then at the least they procure such children or
apprentices to learn some short orthodox catechism without book, that they
may be able to answer unto the questions that shall be propounded to them
out of such catechism by their parents or masters or any of the Select men
when they shall call them to a tryall of what they have learned of this
kinde. And further that all parents and masters do breed & bring up their
children & apprentices in some honest lawful calling, labour or imployment,
either in husbandry, or some other trade profitable for themselves, and the
Common-wealth if they will not or cannot train them up in learning to fit
them for higher imployments. And if any of the Select men after admonition
by them given to such masters of families shal finde them still negligent
of their dutie in the particulars aforementioned, wherby children and
servants become rude, stubborn & unruly; the said Select men with the help
of two Magistrates, or the next County court for that Shire, shall take
such children or apprentices from them & place them with some masters for
years (boyes till they come to twenty one, and girls eighteen years of age
compleat) which will more strictly look unto, and force

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

Jed,
In medieval times there were rules decided by people in a certain trade if
they would allow any new person to establish business in that trade. They
were supposed to be able to see the need for more resources. Guess what?
They made competition non-existent. Today the licensing has ambition to
protect the consumer. In reality it is just no protection but plenty of job
opportunity and income to government. (Just FYI 1790 is not medieval time
to me. In addition the building codes is not what I talked about.)
You say 'for good reasons' which reasons are those good one. That rules has
not changed and that we have laws that cannot be enforced as they should
have been eliminated 50 years ago is hardly a good reason. It is rather a
sign for inefficient government and inability to adopt to modern times.
Examples can be laws about adultery.

You know Jed, who really make the rules is of less importance. The
politics, involved in making the rules, are so outrageously free from
common sense that trying to justify regulations with such statements is
like shooting oneself in the foot. ( I have my problem with the language
but tautology?)

You have never been involved in the setting of industry standards I can
hear. Reality is that it is filled with lobbying and people protecting
there own ways of doing things by forcing legislation to force other to go
the same (often expensive and meaningless). As I said the same impact as
medieval trust laws. So bringing private industry to the table is just
increasing the stupidity and eliminating competition.

The last paragraph shows a very low opinion of your peers and the
population in general. No, things does not become chaos because government
is not involved. There are not that many areas where we can see the
difference between one and the other. In some areas there are parallels but
than, when not government organized it is criminal and that skews the
picture. Examples are prostitution, weed sales etc.

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> See the licensing system for different trades, which is close to medieval
>> rules for trade.
>>
>
> Not just close; they are the same in many instances, for good reason.
> People in medieval times were not fools. In another example, many building
> codes in Pennsylvania are the same today as they were in 1790.
>
>
> I understand that there need to be requirements for certain services. The
>> question is who is capable of judging - I for sure know government is
>> totally incapable.
>>
>
> All of these standards are set by industry, not by government. The
> government enforces standards which are set by organizations such as the
> ASME. Many laws simply reference ASME publications saying that products
> "will meet these standards." So this statement makes no sense. It is a
> tautology:
>
> Standards set by industry are set by industry.
>
> Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
> standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
> expert input from industry.
>
> Without standards industry would be in chaos, unable to accomplish
> anything. The most important U.S. person of the industrial standards
> movement in the 20th century was Secretary of Commerce and later President
> Herbert Hoover. He was not a left wing figure, opposed to capitalism or
> industry.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:who will create EURO-LENR?

2016-02-15 Thread Axil Axil

Unzicker On Robitaille's Solar Model
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w21K4KiYd4I   I am interested in the liquid
sum model because it is inextricably connected to the production of nuclear
energy from cold fusion. In like fashion, the plasma solar model is
connected with the hot fusion paradigm of nuclear physics.   The recent
deployment of many high quality solar based data acquisition tools makes
the observation and understanding of liquid sun a forgone conclusion. But
the current state of professional science makes that countervailing and
antitypical model of the suns nature impossible for the professional
scientist to swallow; a poison pill that leads to a revulsion deeply
engrained in their nature.   If one accepts the liquid sun as reality, then
logic forces a complete rejection of accepted cosmology and its allied
scientific underpinnings. If one accepts the truth of the liquid sun, one
rejects the dominance of the hot fusion model of reality and the ascendency
of cold fusion as the driving force that powers the universe.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

>  a weak weekstart for info- till now
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-15-2016-can-euro-lenr-be-created.html
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

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

2016-02-15 Thread Bob Cook

Just like the single payer insurance system, save money by allowing people to 
have a Federal Reserve Bank Account and receive loans, if qualified, from the 
Fed as a rate a rate equal to 2% above  the 30 year treasury note on the day of 
the loan.  That would make 2% of the monies otherwise loaned to banks at a 
lower rate.  Make the loans for schooling and home purchase at the same rate as 
the 30 year note.  Do away with the bank middle man and the excessive profits 
made by banks.  In other words treat normal biological persons just like 
corporate bank persons are treated with nice low interest rate on Federal 
Reserve Money.  This would be consistent with the equal treatment of persons 
under the constitution at least with respect to loan provisions.  

Also make the natural resources of the country that are sold for development 
purposes, for example oil properties, the property of the people to be shared 
as it is in Alaska.  Provide incentives for the use of the natural resources 
within the country and with a value added tax to supplement the basic income.  
Lastly negotiate the the absolutely unreasonable royalty rate of 12.5 % to a 
fare rate reflecting a 10% margin on costs to create a product that makes use 
of the particular natural resource.  Return taxes to where they were in the 
1950’s on corporate income  from manufacturing outside the country.   Tax the 
use of robots to add to the employment tax base—Medicare and SS funds. 

I can think of many other things to improve the income to support the BI 
government cost.   One would be to provide a single national provider of 
electrical energy at a single national rate.  This would put high cost energy 
sources out of business and encourage efficiency and environmental goodness in 
accordance with government policies.  It would allow the negotiation power of 
the government on obtaining the best rates for the nation and cause the rapid 
phasing out of the expensive grid system.  It would take the place of the 
various state-by-state commissions that negotiate rates and who know what else. 
 Any given state system of providing electricity would be allowed, if it were 
cheaper than the Fed. Govt. rate.  

There’s some progressive if not socialist ideas for consideration.

Bob Cook





From: H LV 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:



  Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favor of basic 
income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics.  Alaska has a modest UBI 
instituted by a Republican governor, based on the profits from oil from Prudhoe 
Bay.  This amounts to $300 - $2000 a year for every resident of more than six 
months. Switzerland will have a referendum on whether to have a $2,400/month 
UBI in 2015 that looks unlikely to pass.  Perhaps a full UBI could be tried 
experimentally in a State or even a city, substituting for all welfare 
payments, to find out the problems. 


If you haven't heard already, the Netherlands and Finland are going to 
conduct basic income trials in the near future. 


  The main objection to UBI is how to pay for it.  Savings could come from 
replacing the present 80 government welfare departments, that has the advantage 
of requiring little administration.  Legalizing drugs to drop the prison 
population. A one payer medical system and of course, getting out of the habit 
of wars.  That alone will not provide enough money, so perhaps changing the 
sales tax to manufacturers, rather than sellers, would capture some of the 
profits from advanced technology instead of it being winner takes all.





Covering the cost of a BI program will likely require a variety of methods, 
but they can be divided into two main approaches. The funding approach is 
usually considered first. This involves various cost saving measures and 
taxation schemes for the redistribution of wealth. However there is also a 
finance approach which would involve the reform of the central banks. See 
_Economic Sustainability of Basic Income Under a Citizen-centered Monetary 
Regime_
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/Inoue.pdf 

Abstract: This paper outlines the historical transformation from 
“administration-centered monetary regimes” to “bank-centered monetary regimes.” 
It reveals three defects in the latter: (1) difficulty overcoming recessions, 
(2) a tendency to create bubbles, and (3) opaque distribution of seigniorage. 
This study proposes a “citizen-centered monetary regime” and confirms that 
providing citizens a basic income financed by seigniorage is sustainable under 
the citizen-centered regime. 

Harry

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

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> See the licensing system for different trades, which is close to medieval
> rules for trade.
>

Not just close; they are the same in many instances, for good reason.
People in medieval times were not fools. In another example, many building
codes in Pennsylvania are the same today as they were in 1790.

I understand that there need to be requirements for certain services. The
> question is who is capable of judging - I for sure know government is
> totally incapable.
>

All of these standards are set by industry, not by government. The
government enforces standards which are set by organizations such as the
ASME. Many laws simply reference ASME publications saying that products
"will meet these standards." So this statement makes no sense. It is a
tautology:

Standards set by industry are set by industry.

Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
expert input from industry.

Without standards industry would be in chaos, unable to accomplish
anything. The most important U.S. person of the industrial standards
movement in the 20th century was Secretary of Commerce and later President
Herbert Hoover. He was not a left wing figure, opposed to capitalism or
industry.

- Jed

[Vo]:Physicists create first photonic Maxwell's demon

Phys.org)—Maxwell's demon, a hypothetical being that appears to violate the
second law of thermodynamics, has been widely studied since it was first
proposed in 1867 by James Clerk Maxwell. But most of these studies have
been theoretical, with only a handful of experiments having actually
realized Maxwell's demon.

Now in a new paper, physicists have reported what they believe is the first
photonic implementation of Maxwell's demon, by showing that measurements
made on two light beams can be used to create an energy imbalance between
the beams, from which work can be extracted. One of the interesting things
about this experiment is that the extracted work can then be used to charge
a battery, providing direct evidence of the "demon's" activity.

Read more at

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-physicists-photonic-maxwell-demon.html

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Converting nuclear magnetic spin to electricity

2016-02-15 Thread Bob Cook

Converting nuclear magnetic spin to electricityThe problem with the patent is 
that it does not suggest the source of energy in the  devices described.  It is 
implied that the source is in the magnetic field that is involved in changing 
the energy states of  nuclei via their respective spin quanta.  Thus, a 
separate energy source is necessary to power the magnetic field that is active 
in providing the nuclei with excess spin energy in the first place.  

In my thoughts about the role of spin in LENR I have assumed a potential energy 
of the nuclear species within a coherent system  is given up to spin energy 
and, hence to heat or maybe directly to electrical by the creation of a voltage 
across a material separating two conductors such as a diode.   

The generation of electrical energy from no apparent source is the problem with 
this patent discussion.  

I am working on a qualitative “theory” of my own that addresses the Pd and Ni 
systems.  This theory builds on the idea of the Ukraine researchers that have 
come up with localized “breathers” in the lattice of metals which display 
anharmonicty in their response to energy stimuli.  The recent paper identified 
by Peter Gluck  in his blog (2-12-16) is such an example: 

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/12/low-temperature-catalysis-of-nuclear-reactions-vladimir-dubinko/
 

In my “theory” I consider  anharmonicty as a result of “negative damping” of 
the motion of coherent system nucleons responding to kinetic energy 
inputs—thermal lattice vibration directionally organized by a magnetic field, 
for example.  Such anharmonic motion may lead to significant displacement and, 
at selected locations, substantial increased probability  for nuclear reactions 
as the distance between nucleons  is periodically reduced.  The frequency 
modulation of ambient magnetic and/or electric fields may substantially 
increase such a anharmonic response.  

I have had experience in resolving anharmonic issues in hydraulic systems where 
negative damping of otherwise robust structures subjected to hydraulic loading  
caused sever vibrations.   The systems were geometrically too complex with 
uncertain tolerances on minute dimensions to allow analytic evaluations.  It 
was only through testing the actual systems that changes were indicated to 
eliminate the conditions for the excessive vibrations.  This seems to be the 
modus operandi of Rossi in designing his LENR systems.  It may be the best way 
to design coherent systems with unknown defects etc. that can produce the 
necessary anharmonic conditions and cause the approach and reaction of nucleons 
in the system. 

Jones—thanks for that reference.  It does provide a number of schemes for 
coupling spin of the nucleus to the electronic structure.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 7:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Converting nuclear magnetic spin to electricity

For Bob Cook and other free-spinners… granted patent after 7 year wait 

Electric generator US 8736151 B2 – Burgener and Renlund


Essentially it would convert ambient heat into electricity. Free energy 
(supposedly)… and it uses an electret… shades of Steorn.


Abstract

Methods, compositions, and apparatus for generating electricity are provided. 
Electricity is generated through the mechanisms nuclear magnetic spin and 
remnant polarization electric generation. The apparatus may include a material 
with high nuclear magnetic spin or high remnant polarization coupled with a 
poled ferroelectric material. The apparatus may also include a pair of 
electrical contacts disposed on opposite sides of the poled ferroelectric 
material and the high nuclear magnetic spin or high remnant polarization 
material. Further, a magnetic field may be applied to the high nuclear magnetic 
spin material. END of abstract.

Prototypes have been shown. Not sure of current status as there were legal 
disputes involved. Eye witnesses under NDA have seen it producing electrical 
power. There is a chance that “something like this” is involved in the Steorn 
device (to the extent that either device actually works over an extended 
period) but I doubt it - since Steorn doesn’t seem to work, firstly - and 
secondly doesn’t have a magnetic field. Here is an update:

http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/02/new-video-reveals-ocube-components-describes-problems/

[Vo]:who will create EURO-LENR?

2016-02-15 Thread Peter Gluck

 a weak weekstart for info- till now
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-15-2016-can-euro-lenr-be-created.html
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

As with any change one can approach it at least two ways.
1. Fear it and see the doomsday approaching.
2. Accept it and try to regroup to get maximum benefit from it.

To me it is obvious and to most people it is when I put it this simple. The
problem occurs because people dive into details and observe that certain
things will be negatively affected. The reaction ought to be; we must
change this situation now so we better can benefit from future advances.

It seems I am the only one proposing smaller organizations. Maybe after a
long period of very large organizations it seems powerless. IMHO with
unprecedented access to information, with instant communication everywhere
(soon anyhow), there is no value in the large organization. The large
organization has very few advantages but a number of easily recognized
disadvantages:
1. They automatically carries a large amount of 'fat'. Therefore
ineffective.
2. In an open society with great access to information, there capacity for
deploying resources they harbor will no longer have a value. The same
resources can be deployed without formal and inflexible (read forever)
 organization.
3. Given the opportunity most people will produce better if given the right
to produce what they are interested in. Large organizations have to force
people to do things the organization deems important. Thus there is a
possibility for small organization with temporary liaisons to provide
better result if we embrace the new opportunity. I think there are two
issues one need to resolve before this can be a reality:
  a. Basic income needs to be separated from work. UBI is a
possible solution.
  b. People must be educated so they can see and utilize the
opportunity.

I do agree with Adrian in his analysis and suggested solutions.
I have lived my first 45 years in Scandinavia. I have first hand experience
and it certainly has its advantages. However, the differences between US
welfare and the Swedish ditto is very small. I sometimes feel there is less
freedom in the US system. (I know it is hard to believe and that many will
say - cannot be so.) There is one big difference. The Swedish system is
considered a right, the US system is murky in its implementation. This
might not be the best analysis but what I am trying to say is that there is
an attitude difference, which is hard to describe. Personally I have chosen
to live in California so it has to be some advantages or am I saying one
and doing the other? Reality is that days are longer and the sunshine
prevalent in California. The nuances in difference in regards to politics
are so small that there is hardly possible to distinguish between and they
for sure are evened out over time. As Adrian is saying; ' One possible way
of avoiding the looming conflict is conversion to a welfare system like the
Scandinavian countries employ'. It actually calms down the
revolutionary tendencies.
I just want to add that I think the comparison is very unfair. The US is 30
times more people, and even as Sweden has a large number of immigrants
lately, it is still a much more homogeneous population than the US. The
Scandinavian model cannot be implemented in the US. This model will not be
enough in Scandinavia either - more must follow. I think the most important
in the US is to decentralize the government.
1. Less in Washington and more in the neighborhood block.
2. Reduce the bureaucratic obstacles we have built with a good intention
but with totally wrong result. See the licensing system for different
trades, which is close to medieval rules for trade. I understand that there
need to be requirements for certain services. The question is who is
capable of judging - I for sure know government is totally incapable.

LENR has many characteristics, which would help future social development.
Just as we need to search for solutions in the energy field, that makes
life better, we need to find a model for distributing the resources and
make sure everyone has the basics.

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 Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:57 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I wrote a long piece about this last year covering the present, the near
> future and possible solutions. The third part on solutions follows.
>
> *Possible solutions.*
>
> The Triple Revolution (Cybernation.  Weaponry,  Human Rights)  was an
> open letter, signed by notables, sent to President LB Johnson on March
> 22, 1964.  Although now dated, the problems of automation were foreseen.
> All have been ignored to some extent and it will take a brave politician,
> considering how their elections are funded, to state the obvious that
> American adventurism can no longer be sustained and that the new unemployed
> must be supported.
>
> History shows that when wealth inequality reaches a certain

RE: [Vo]: Orbo power packs

2016-02-15 Thread Jones Beene

Bob,

 

Do you have any comment on the Burgener patent in the context of Orbo?

 

There are anomalies in circuits which seem to turn up whenever batteries, 
supercaps and electrets are combined. This is a lure, and Steorn bit - but no 
one has pulled it off before in a long term device. I have a feeling that 
Steorn saw a real anomaly but jumped the gun on bringing it to market too soon. 

 

It goes back to having both types of charge carriers (electron and ionic) and 
both types of current (conduction current and displacement current), combined 
with a constant source of phantom voltage from the electret, and in the case of 
Burgener – both a ferroelectric and ferromagnetic juxtaposition.

 

Even with the problems which have turned up, I am less skeptical than before 
that there is a real energy anomaly here. This does not mean that Steorn is 
capable of harnessing it, since they have demonstrated no level of high skill 
or acumen (other than in fundraising) so the door is still open for others with 
the proper skills.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

It appears from the Steorn video description pointed to by Jones below that the 
the "power packs" behave as an unusual capacitor.  The device appears to have 
separate charge and discharge modes.  In charge mode the capacitor-like 
"power-packs" are "charged" from a high voltage source (2x9V battery with 
series 1Mohm resistor).  While charging, the capacitance appears to be very 
low, call it Cc, and it doesn't take much Coulombic charge (not many electrons) 
to reach a voltage of, say 5V.  Then the capacitor-like "power pack" is 
switched to a load.  In discharge, the capacitance, Cd, appears to be much 
higher than Cc, allowing more Coulombic charge (more electrons) to be taken out 
before the device reaches its minimum discharge voltage.  This is a quite 
unusual [classically impossible over-unity] device, which still may be related 
to an electret.  It appears that the capacitor-like "power pack" elements are 
of "jelly roll" construction due to their cylindrical form factor.  

If the "power pack" devices truly work in this fashion, I can easily see how 
over-unity energy is delivered.

 

Jones Beene wrote:

Prototypes have been shown. Not sure of current status as there were legal 
disputes involved. Eye witnesses under NDA have seen it producing electrical 
power. There is a chance that “something like this” is involved in the Steorn 
device (to the extent that either device actually works over an extended 
period) but I doubt it - since Steorn doesn’t seem to work, firstly - and 
secondly doesn’t have a magnetic field. Here is an update: 

 

 
http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/02/new-video-reveals-ocube-components-describes-problems/

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge

2016-02-15 Thread Daniel Rocha

If every paper has on average 1mb, that goes over 40Tb.  Not a big deal,
nowadays, I think.

Re: [Vo]: Orbo power packs

All I want is a clock that I never need to wind.
At this stage I think Steorn is overreaching by trying to make and sell a
self-charging cell phone.

Harry

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It appears from the Steorn video description pointed to by Jones below
> that the the "power packs" behave as an unusual capacitor.  The device
> appears to have separate charge and discharge modes.  In charge mode the
> capacitor-like "power-packs" are "charged" from a high voltage source (2x9V
> battery with series 1Mohm resistor).  While charging, the capacitance
> appears to be very low, call it Cc, and it doesn't take much Coulombic
> charge (not many electrons) to reach a voltage of, say 5V.  Then the
> capacitor-like "power pack" is switched to a load.  In discharge, the
> capacitance, Cd, appears to be much higher than Cc, allowing more Coulombic
> charge (more electrons) to be taken out before the device reaches its
> minimum discharge voltage.  This is a quite unusual [classically impossible
> over-unity] device, which still may be related to an electret.  It appears
> that the capacitor-like "power pack" elements are of "jelly roll"
> construction due to their cylindrical form factor.
>
> If the "power pack" devices truly work in this fashion, I can easily see
> how over-unity energy is delivered.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Prototypes have been shown. Not sure of current status as there were
>> legal disputes involved. Eye witnesses under NDA have seen it producing
>> electrical power. There is a chance that “something like this” is
>> involved in the Steorn device (to the extent that either device actually
>> works over an extended period) but I doubt it - since Steorn doesn’t seem
>> to work, firstly - and secondly doesn’t have a magnetic field. Here is
>> an update:
>>
>>
>> *http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2016/02/new-video-reveals-ocube-components-describes-problems/*
>> 
>>
>>
>

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