That's why I coupled the two probabilities upthread. Did you read the thread? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93531.html
Let's say you think there's a 66% chance that Rossi's "real" and a 50% chance that CYPW will be in the right commercial place to take advantage. That means that you think it's 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 chance that such a stock will basically skyrocket. And in the past this stock has skyrocketed by more than 100X, so we're talking 33% emotional odds versus 10000% pot odds on this stock. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid > and the commercial viability of a product based on that process. > > Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a > Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell > in the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and > engineering fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation. > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. >> >> Earlier you said: Not even Pons & Fleischmann can lay claim to having >> found the effect. >> >> Which sound to me something like "the great (not even) P&F can't claim >> they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly >> certian..." >> >> Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was >> ignorant of if his effect was real or not. >> >> Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is >> a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by >> Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. >> >> Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and >> has the associated difficulties. >> I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic >> hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a >> robust aetheric effect to me. >> >> But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have >> insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. >> But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing >> magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has >> an MO that is at odds with a con man. >> >> But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. >> >> As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that >> probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
