By coincidence this popped up this evening and I thought it might interest you. On NPR- "Fresh Air". "Bottled Lightning- Superbatteries, Electric Cars and the New Lithium Economy" by Seth Fletcher
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/136856749/leading-the-charge-to-make-better-electric-cars There's a selection from the book which was electrifying! :-) On Jun 8, 3:02 am, allan deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL Rigsy lithium like the economy is highly unstable. > Allan > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:54 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ease of trade and former agreement in its value among trading > > partners. Are there any countries still on the gold or silver > > standard? > > > Maybe we are in the Middle East and Northern Africa for its sand? Rare > > earth metals are desired from central Asia. Maybe lithium will be the > > new gold- hard to rhyme, however. :-) > > > On Jun 7, 7:45 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > While the Chinese government may still retain some power, overall the > > > > issue as it is around the globe is corporations. The SOEs (State Owned > > > > Enterprises) in China are on the decline and relatively few remain. > > > > These SOEs are being replaced by ‘Listed’ (stock mark) ones. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation#People.27s_... > > > > > A few Chinese corporations are even setting up shop in the USA because > > > > about all expenses (except wages) are much less here these days. > >http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/news/international/china_america_full... > > > > > Of course, on the other hand, US (in name at least) corporations have > > > > been operating in China for decades and the list is quite substantial. > >http://www.jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm > > > > > What I see is that multinationals are the real global power with few > > > > exceptions. > > > > > As a side issue, this isn’t great news for our planet and its > > > > environmental concerns. > > > > > As to ‘owning the USA’, the majority of Chinese economists would > > > > rather own gold. > >http://www.chinastakes.com/2009/3/survey-over-two-thirds-of-chinese-e... > > > > Which itself is amazing. Why do humans rate gold so much? Shiny, > > > malleable, metal. Is it purely the colour? Silicon is pretty in its > > > raw form and has, in CPUs, given us far more than gold has. > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 12:41 pm, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Sweet can't wait to read it mate. > > > > > > The Chinese aren't going to like it though. I've named them as Magog > > > > > (the big question is: Who is Gog?). I strongly suspect that it will > > > > > be banned in China because of that; however, in my specific advice to > > > > > China, I state much more (and I do praise them in certain areas, too) > > > > > and I know that the leadership will read it and THEY are the intended > > > > > audience (of the advice!), so their ban won't affect that aspect in > > > > > any way. I warn them that, if they continue to buy the U.S. treasury > > > > > (by buying the Treasury Notes and Bills as they are doing), that they > > > > > are buying a huge responsibility and have reminded them that, when > > > > > America fights, it has plenty of history to demonstrate it can fight > > > > > dirty: Guerilla warfare against the British rank and file, handing > > out > > > > > blankets infected with smallpox to Native Americans and being the > > only > > > > > company to ever use nuclear weapons, when they KNEW no one could > > > > > retaliate in kind are the examples I laid out. America may not be > > > > > happy with that either, but it's all history. I want China to know > > > > > that owning America's pocket might not be as advantageous as they may > > > > > think. And, of course, I remind them that, whilst their van is > > > > > strong, there rear is weak and then outline the way to defeat China > > in > > > > > battle. Of course it's nasty (biological!) but I want China to > > > > > realise that they are not invulnerable and that they should not act > > on > > > > > the premiss that they are invincible. if they are going to own > > > > > America, then they need to act wisely and with due consideration or > > > > > face an unruly bunch who are armed to the teeth, which is not > > > > > something I want to see in the future (that kind of conflagration, > > > > > that is). > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 1:08 pm, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is finished then Pat? > > > > > > > > Not quite. I have to finish the 'Conclusion' section and finish > > off > > > > > > > an appendix that offers advice to specific countries and I'd like > > to > > > > > > > add a glossary. Once those are done, I'll start re-reading it > > from > > > > > > > the top and add or modify as I go. When that's finished, repeat > > that > > > > > > > step and THEN it should be done. 2-3 months max!!! First person > > I > > > > > > > ran into who did publishing of any kind already has a draft copy > > for > > > > > > > reading and is practically begging me to let him publish it. > > So...all > > > > > > > is going very well indeed. Cheers!! > > > > > > > > > On May 31, 1:53 pm, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 11:09 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It get harder than even the following standard philosphy > > Lee: > > > > > > > > > > Since a Cartesian substance is a thing that is > > ontologically > > > > > > > > > > independent (Principles I:51–52), a complete thing is an > > ontologically > > > > > > > > > > independent thing. When we clearly and distinctly perceive > > mind and > > > > > > > > > > body to be complete, we know that they are substances. When > > we still > > > > > > > > > > clearly and distinctly perceive them to be substances after > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > and distinctly perceiving them apart from each other, we > > know that > > > > > > > > > > they are not the same substance under different > > descriptions. On this > > > > > > > > > > view, Descartes holds that mind and body are ontologically > > independent > > > > > > > > > > substances, and their distinctness consists in their > > ability to > > > > > > > > > > continue to exist even after God separates them.[36] > > > > > > > > > > As you might remember, in my theory, thre is only energy. > > Yet that > > > > > > > > > energy works on three different levels: the physical, > > consciousness > > > > > > > > > and the purely abstract. This represents three ways of > > energy > > > > > > > > > expressing itself as a different Cartesian 'substance', even > > though, > > > > > > > > > in fact, it is all the same substance. A simple half-twist > > and a turn > > > > > > > > > around a dimensional corner and the underlying string can > > work in > > > > > > > > > three ways at once. Descartes and I agree on most things and > > this is > > > > > > > > > another, although I have the advantage of all the science > > after Rene!! > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative interpretation of Descartes on the real > > distinction > > > > > > > > > > between mind and body reads the distinction as consisting > > in the > > > > > > > > > > ontological independence of mind and body, but not in their > > > > > > > > > > separability.[37] Descartes holds that a sufficient > > condition for > > > > > > > > > > establishing a real distinction between two things is > > clearly and > > > > > > > > > > distinctly perceiving them to be non-identical substances > > (“Synopsis > > > > > > > > > > of these following six Meditations,” AT 7:13, CSM 2:9; > > Fourth Replies, > > > > > > > > > > AT 7:221–223, CSM 2:156–58). If so, he holds that the > > substantiality > > > > > > > > > > of two non-identical substances does not consist in their > > being > > > > > > > > > > separable but is just an indication of their > > separability.[38] On this > > > > > > > > > > view, mind and body are separable for Descartes; it's just > > that their > > > > > > > > > > separability is a consequence of the (different) fact that > > they are > > > > > > > > > > really distinct.[39] > > > > > > > > > > > A third reading of the Cartesian real distinction stresses > > the > > > > > > > > > > difficulty in making room for unactualized possibilities in > > Descartes' > > > > > > > > > > system. The reading also highlights that Descartes holds > > that our > > > > > > > > > > clear and distinct perceptions are veridical but says (in > > his proof of > > > > > > > > > > real distinction) that God can bring about whatever we > > clearly and > > > > > > > > > > distinctly perceive. Descartes is clear in other texts that > > the reason > > > > > > > > > > why he mentions God's power in the proof of real > > distinction is to > > > > > > > > > > remind us that no matter how unlikely we think it is that > > our > > > > > > > > > > intimately united minds and bodies could also be really > > distinct, God > > > > > > > > > > has enough power to have made all of our clear and distinct > > > > > > > > > > perceptions veridical. > > > > > > > > > > Yup and I can put the physics behind his assertion. And, > > will do so > > > > > > > > > (have done so!!) in my book. I do give Descartes a lot of > > credit in > > > > > > > > > my book with respect to picking up where he left off. > > > > > > > > > > > I'd rather swim in your sea mate! Science gets like this > > in its > > > > > > > > > > conceptions. It's seriously entertained that distance is a > > complex > > > > > > > > > > illusion. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 11:05 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Duality and non duality. It's a hard one to get the head > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > I belive that Ik on kar, that duality is indeed an > > illusion, but it's > > > > > > > > > > > a bit one way and a bit the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > If God has granted us free will, that is the freedom to > > choose God or > > > > > > > > > > > not, then that points towards non duality, but does it > > really? > > > > > > > > > > > > I see it like water. The sea is the whole, the ik on > > kar, but it is > > > > > > > > > > > made up of individual drops. We are both the individual > > drops and the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
