David Nygren was so kind to send me this: http://lenrnews.eu/?p=309
Fran Tanzella ill make the Brillouin presentation. Peter On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com>wrote: > Finlay, good to hear, > > my response to Jed did not get through. > I would be interested how You see this from a Canadian perspective. > > So here it is: > ------------------- > ok, Canadian immigration does not care, who immigrates. > 1) On this level it is just about the rules. > Pay yor dough, be compliant, pass basic tests. No problem here. > > > 2) On a higher level, say Canadian secret service, it is about risk > assessment. > Could the immigrant be a risk to the nation, whatever that is? DGT very > well be maybe a new type of national risk. > They may very well be asleep at the wheel, and not recognize this. > > 3) The next level would be DGT starting operations within CDN, plus being > successful, which wakes up the institutions. > > 4) On the next level it gets political. > > > Even a moderate chess-player like myself could anticipate these moves. > > If you do not anticipate, you are on the losing street. > > So what happens next? > > 5) Here we enter the domain of the probable, where I speculate, that the > Harper-government would step in and limit DGTG-in-CDN operations, as soon > as it gets effective. > The fossile-energy lobby in CDN is probably the biggest in the country. > > Considering this, DGT would be well advised to stay in Greece, where law > and lobby-interests are weak, -only corruption there- and not operate near > the belly of the energy-beast, which will fight teeth and claw to prevent > energy-revolution. > > Probabilistic in this sense: that a chess player enters the domain of > future moves, where nothing is certain, but (im-)probable. > The parameter-space of chess is tiny compared to real life, as we all > know, and the way to reduce degrees of freedom is common sense. > > Finally: Considering this, DGTs move seems to be a bad move to me. > > But I might be wrong. > Such is my -ahem- probabilistic thinking. > The beauty: I will never be disappointed. I eventually just lose. But this > is the nature of the game. > I just modify probabilities next time, if there is a 'next time' ;) > > Guenter > > > > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Finlay MacNab <finlaymac...@hotmail.com> > *An:* "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Gesendet:* 22:51 Freitag, 27.Juli 2012 > *Betreff:* RE: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more? > > As a research scientist working for a solar start-up in Vancouver, I > agree with Jed. > > It would be wonderful if Defkalion moved here. I would love to > nanostructure some nickel for them! > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:48:11 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:ICCF-17: Brillouin is no more? > From: jedrothw...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> wrote: > > > I am very aware of possible positive effects of this move. > > My main argument is probabilistic. > > > I am not sure what "probabilistic" means in this context. But in any case, > your statement about how the Canadian government might refuse to allow an > incorporation is nonsense. The law does not permit that. > > - Jed > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
