Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I think the validation should be more in this style 10 up to minus 7 is stupid 1% is next to stupid 20% a hard call 50% a good chance and with some support very likely 80% JUST DO IT A SURE THING The last two just requires attention. I know I am an optimist and that my comments are anything but science. However, it is all basedon Pareto's law and it works in 80% of all cases. Statistical odds is far different and they are not of any significance as they are driven by mass-hysteria and are totally unpredictable as we learnt the first lesson in statistics. Reason is that they mostly are presented without the total numbers it is based on. If the first two have different opinion then anything is possible. The reall problem is that most percentages are derivated out of the odds . A real evaluation and my numbers are ok if you are involved. Not involved then it is gambling and I have heard that peope are winning the lottery so who knows . . . On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 43%? Are you sure? I think it should be 51.8%. Then again, depending on his grades at Yale, maybe only 47.53%. Just spitballing here . . . but I don't see where you came up with 43%. - Jed While naturally some things come with a genuine probability, such as the odds in, well gambling. But these kinds of estimates of probability in regard real world things such as this are never point anything unless it is 0.1% or 99.% But I'd go further and say that anything other than the following is probably just talking, well you know... 0.1% Almost no chance 1% Really unlikely, but definitely possible. A real long shot. 20% very real chance, but still less likely than not 50% Around about about even as far as I can tell. 80% Probably will happen, but there is still a real chance it won't. 99% Really likely, but not certain, could be considered 'a sure thing' though. 99.9% Almost certain, I wouldn't worry. Sure, you could argue that maybe there should be 40% or 60%, but such slight edges are mostly due to bias in evaluation, wishful thinking. And have little utility. Anything more or less sure going into 80% or 20%. What good does 30% of subjective probability do different to 20%? What good is 60 or 70%? These slight edges one way are based on ego and bias, wishful thinking and fear. And even if real, in a one shot instance the difference between 35% and 65% is debatable since there is a very reasonable probability of 'winning' with a 35% probability (of success) and losing at 65% probability (of success). Only on multiple trials even if these probabilities are genuine would their difference really show through. 43% is an unbalanced mind and out of control ego in need of help, or a big rest.
Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil.
I cannot determine if Papp was a fraud or not. However, I do agree ego is far more important than logic or the good for others. In the sevenntoies I met aguy who offered me to be his partner mmanufacturing and selling the best wind xcreen cleaner stuff I have seen. However, his conditions was I cannot let you in on the manufacturing process. When I told him that was not acceptable. He answered, does not matter , I will never let anyone know, I rather take my drawings and jump in the deepest point in the Baltic than showing anyone. I lived in Sweden at thetime why the Baltic. I guess the drawing went away as I never sawthe 9products again. I used it on a car myself and it was fantastic so. ? This about the mindset of some smart , misdirected guys. Lennart Thornros On Jan 22, 2014 7:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That may be the solution Axil. Pride can make people do things that they would not do otherwise. I am sure most of us have said of done things that we later realized was not entirely accurate but failed to set the record straight. Perhaps, as more of your existence becomes entangled in the idea, you do not allow yourself to fail and loose face. I suspect there are a number of physicists that we all know that are beginning to understand that they have essentially made fools of themselves by their opposition to LENR and can not allow themselves to admit their long time errors. Most will go to their graves with the secret. My two cents worth. -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. I have a possible take on a man like Mills who has invested so much into this theory that might be Papp like. If his world saving invention was found to contradict the hydrino theory, he might pull a Papp and kill the project to maintain his place in history. When a man ties his ego so very tightly to something, then to protect that beloved thing, the welfare of the world can go to hell. Just a thought... On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Sorry John. You are correct about what you say to a certain extent. How much resistance do you think the general public would exhibit to owning a vehicle that runs virtually for free? This is the same group that will ensure that LENR does not get hidden behind closed doors. It is far more likely that the engine does not work than that the automobile companies would fail to realize the prize before them since the first one to put such an engine into their vehicles is the one that makes an enormous windfall and I find it difficult to believe that those guys do not understand that. If the oil industry were the main concern, then they would attempt to buy the engine themselves to keep it out of use. That is one of the main concerns that LENR will face once the companies realize that this technology is real. So far, no one has convinced the oil industry that they are doomed. Hopefully, it will be too late for them to slam shut the doors in time to save themselves. Are you aware of any past attempt to prevent Papp from marketing his engine? I admit that I require strong evidence to believe in a product that is as revolutionary as the Papp engine. How can I or anyone else trust our normal senses to be right about such a device? From what I read, Papp did not go out of the way to allow his design to be thoroughly inspected and tested by anyone out of his control. Who are we to trust to make a determination that that device was not a fraud? Apparently Feynmann did not believe in the device and he was well respected in the physics community. So yes, I will require plenty of proof before I accept the Papp concept. That proof will begin when someone can demonstrate that the COE is preserved in such a system. Mills might turn out to be that guy, and I wish him plenty of luck. But, until strong evidence is presented I will harbor significant doubt. I have a suspicion that you are also not convinced that the Papp engine is totally above board. Am I right? Also, consider that action of Papp just before his death. Hiding the secret that might save millions of lives and bring on a new world is not the kind of action taken by a reasonable, caring individual. Instead, it is exactly what I would expect for one hoping to keep his soon to be tarnished reputation intact into the future. Apparently he did a great job of hiding his secret liquid brew along with his submarine scam. Maybe that one was real and I just do not understand it either? Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. David, you show a most
Re: [Vo]:Energy sector employment and cold fusion
I agree with that there will be less demand for physical labor. There will also be a need for a lot of people to get a new education / job training. Changes have been accelerating for at least 100 years no news and nothing to worry about. The problem is that our government incl. of the government in France and the US etc. etc. all have their own agenda. They will not accept the changes and therefore it is hard to predict the consequences. If we used common sense we could of course direct the surplus resources to do other wanted / needed jobs. The idea of a base salary cannot be implemented because it would make a lot of government people obsolete and that is not acceptable for any power person in the government. The risk is that too many people totally disagree with the government and then we will face a revolution or anarchy. We have built organizations that could have been beneficial in 1930 or so. Organizations with zero flexibility and a totally ineffective. Small organizations with flexibility and distributed decision making is what we wanted. Once we understand that we could get all the benefits from LENR. However, it is like the church was in medieval time and it is going to be a hard fight before we can have a new era of Renaissance. I am sure it will come. Question is how long time and what can we do to improve the pace of change. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Alain Sepeda wrote: cold fusion will give buying power to people globally[...] Hopefully so. Maybe low cost fusion (Lockheed 'Skunkworks'), aneutronic fusion (LPP), or thorium reactors will also play a role. the problem is only if - money stay in a closed community... it happened with oil, with concentrated wealth... Yes. This is a real concern. Spreading the wealth dilutes the influence of the uber-rich. Power usually does not like sharing. the problem is that in France school and professional training is very sick... and people are used with static career... anyway things are changing... BTW, I requested an audio copy of a Sunday Morning radio show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC,circa 1995) on which a well-known French 'think tank' spokesman explicitly stated that their goal was to deceive Frenchmen into believing the EU was an unmixed blessing for France, while admitting that it destroyed French sovereignty, and surrendered economic control. I wanted to send it to some anti-EU organizations in Paris, but apparently the CBC had been directed to expunge these embarrassing remarks. The CBC repeatedly sent me previous unrelated interviews of this fellow --- This show was 'disappeared'. France seems to be controlled by unaccountable oligarchs. [...]
Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial
Torulf, I think you are philosophizing about an issue that has no relevance. Some politician might agree with you. However, who is going to manufacture, sell and distribute LENR reactors is not decided one iota from the fact that a functional LENR reactor is engineered here or there. Neither does it matter from an economical point of view where the theory is verified. I understand that it would be beneficial in some ways if people who understand the theory was not moved to the back office as the products are implemented. (the scientific acknowledgement would still be there). My two cents to that discussion is to suggest to you guys who have the theoretical knowledge and ideas to make liaisons with entrepreneurs and capital sources that easily will see the benefit. The low hanging fruit. I am not saying that is a must. Just striving for the science acknowledgement might be just as good. Axil, your say that LENR may be a new force, a catalyst, and an amplifier for great social change. is always the visionaries point of view. My experience tells me to be much more cynical. Every politician in the world will have promoted LENR and therefore should be renumerated and given impact on the implementation. Lobby . . . . I hope you are right and I am wrong. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: US may catch up China in the LENR race but then outscore the production to China and after some time sell of the technology to them. Torulf On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:14:13 -0500, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *That will be their problem. It will not stop the people who build factories.* Spoken like an insensitive plutocrat that these words reveal you to be. But this is how it is all over the world today and the advent of LENR will unfortunately not affect this attitude in the least. Like you, a great princess once said *Let them eat cake*”. Many of her class who shared this same attitude eventually lost their heads as a consequence; but now again in this modern age; LENR may be a new force, a catalyst, and an amplifier for great social change.
Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial
Yes, Axil this is reality and we just need to stop focusing about what is gone. That does not mean to build companies to provide jobs. Jobs must be the logical consequences of providing good attractive products. We need to understand that in most places the population are happy for much less than what we want. I think we need to accept that as part of the evolution and let the near future improvement benefit the not so well off.If we let them they will quickly be at our demand level. China for example has made enormous improvement in living standard (I am eyewitness to that). That is not because the government wanted that. No, much more important is the internet for example. You can not suppress people with old myth theological or political when they are constant bombarded with information about the opposite. I thought that the biggest problem was to support and give a good standard of living to the for ever increasing population on this planet. LENR might be a very good answer to that. Keep it away from the politicians and get the entrepreneurs on board. BTW LENR will make jobs in the US too. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If the past is prolog... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhonehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/iphone/index.html?inline=nyt-classifiermanufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight. A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day. “The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.” But as Steven P. Jobshttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/steven_p_jobs/index.html?inline=nyt-perof Applehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/apple_computer_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-orgspoke, President Obamahttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-perinterrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States? Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked. Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:45 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: US may catch up China in the LENR race but then outscore the production to China and after some time sell of the technology to them. Torulf On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:14:13 -0500, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *That will be their problem. It will not stop the people who build factories.* Spoken like an insensitive plutocrat that these words reveal you to be. But this is how it is all over the world today and the advent of LENR will unfortunately not affect this attitude in the least. Like you, a great princess once said *Let them eat cake*”. Many of her class who shared this same attitude eventually lost their heads as a consequence; but now again in this modern age; LENR may be a new force, a catalyst, and an amplifier for great social change.
Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial
Alain, I think you are a bigger optimist than I am. Wouldn't that be something a LENR party in each country (China??) Well. I think if we can find the low-hanging fruit. The entrepreneurs and investors, which are easy to convince about LENR. I think you find them among small strong entities. I do not discourage your ambitions but it is hard to make changes. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/7 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com Axil, your say that LENR may be a new force, a catalyst, and an amplifier for great social change. is always the visionaries point of view. My experience tells me to be much more cynical. *Every politician in the world will have promoted LENR and therefore should be renumerated and given impact on the implementation. Lobby * . . . . I hope you are right and I am wrong. If some people ask themselves what they can do about LENR transition, I have an answer. We have to get a foot in politic to avoid the old parrty to protect the old lobbies... a beloved politic expert told me that if you want the things to change, you have to influence politic, by lobbying (moaning in public, mail, party, NGO)... the best way could be to get internal contact with even lower level activists in a newly created party in each country/state. get contact with one or two activist... talk of the hope, the influence they could get, the need of good regulation to allo LENR at home (like allowing LENR at home, proposing reinsurance of the govt for blackswan, no subsidies but reorganization of education, or public research...)... some will contact the news free-market party where there was none before.. some will contact the local statist party where there was not before... some wil contact the pirate party, where it is new... some wil contact the religious, or the secular party where it is newcommer... some will contact the green if they are new... some will contact the farme party, or an imigrant community party... try to enter the radar of the newcommers... not only they may hear you, but the old party will hear you there too, and wll take you mere seriously if you are in a challenger party, than if you were begging support
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Hello Blazoe, I did not understand all you said. I do believe we have similar opinions. Hower, I believe you have the partners yo deserve. If gaming industry are interested then you know the chances are better than 60 to 70 %. Now, identify other people more seriious which can benefit from LENR. No, not governm0ent or institutions, they are only betting when they have 120% 100 as return on the paper and 20 in thepocket. Best Lennart Thornros On Jan 6, 2014 6:33 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fair points. Note that I am more mostly referring to Rossi and that LENR+ is currently available in some secret lab somewhere. It's worth noting that much like most people here I generally believe in LENR itself and I am fairly optimistic that LENR+ might be possible at some point, even if in the distant future (60-70%). For example, perhaps it will require a much more fine grained control over particles and understanding of quantum tunneling to overcome the coulomb barrier. Or something. This is all intuition/speculation of course. As for my estimates: I like STM as they're by far and away the most credible institution that has gotten involved in LENR in a serious way. It's one thing for random individuals to do things, but it's another for groups of people / managers / public shareholder money to get thrown at this. The ARPA-E wasn't a big deal for me. It was one tiny box in a multitude of boxes. If ARPA-E is a big deal, than LENR has bigger problems as I've been working on the assumption that ARPA is just hostile to the whole movement from reasons other than scientific. I don't see Duncan as a big deal, more of a failure from an individual point of view. He bailed on LENR and the big donation, that really speaks more about him than LENR itself. Maybe he did it for his wife. Who knows. I was sad to see it though. Cravens is great. He helps show that LENR is real. Toyota and friends did some great stuff there as well. The Chinese thing is interesting and it was my biggest source of excitement. But then I just read that Rossi has staffed his biz with ex-gambling industry people. Yikes. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Blaze Spinnaker This is based on * STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) * Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) * Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) * Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently. If so, then the ARPA-E inclusion of LENR for funding should add something positive, and the Defkalion departure from Canada should detract. Why give so much comparative credence to the STM patent application? First off, it was not a very good application in my estimation, and could be net neutral. Cravens patent stuff is more meaningful and important. The main plus is that a major company went to the trouble to file something. Robert Duncan moving from Missouri to Texas AM could go either way, no? The Chinese connection could be assessed much higher.
Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial
Doom and gloom. Self fulfilling prophecy. I think you are right to be cautious. I agree with that there are reasons to say that China and other not so well off countries will be able to swing forward because they might see the opportunity and are 'hungry'.. In itself that is positive. I think you will agree, there is enough energy to share. To believe that China or any third world country would have an advantage is painting the devil on the wall (and become scared). Reality is that the west has an advantage (as usual). I agree with that this is a situation when the west might lose some of its advantages. No, I did not say become less prosperous as I think a progression in the not so well off countries is a long term advantage. I usually agree with Ed Storms but I cannot support your logic here. You are obviously concerned about global warming and how we do not do enough. LENR would be a fantastic step forward maybe enough to revert what bad we have done for some time to increase the temperature on the planet. The global warming ideas has been sold poorly and there is no basic support from anyone not involved in science. LENR could be a popular way to achieve the goal. See the possibilities and react accordingly. I think Jed's comments are reality. This is not the days of Copernicus. The internet is here. Now is the question what to do? Hang up your hat as we are too old (70)? I think that it is not an opportunity to find the solution and become rich. As little as the Wright brothers benefited big times from aviation as little will Rossi benefit from LENR. Refining the process will make the initial patent rather obsolete and refining will start when we have full understanding. Instead we need to focus on spreading the knowledge. I appreciate that we need a lot of science support and that it would be good to have support financially from government or big corporations.You are stating on this blog? that i t is impossible for many reasons. Do you think having support from the communistic Chinese government is doable? No. I think Rossi is doing something right when he use Swedish Vattenfall (yes, I am a Naturalized Swede). Because they have the right position to benefit from the technology. I am sure we can identify many other possible partners. As usual in all development, small and big, the management and the marketing is what is needed. Instead of doom and gloom we need to educate and advertise to all parties, which will benefit from the technology step. That work is just as important as the scientific side of the development. Using the internet and our very good ability to design teams for building a lose but strong organization is my idea for not hanging up the hat but to do something. I am sure there are others with more specific ideas and I wish they brought them forward. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Well put Ed Storms. Jed as always is a cornucopian. LENR has a huge political foot print in the U.S; Five million very high paying jobs are at stake in the energy production segments and fuel transportation and distribution economy. In the immediate first pass, all those jobs whose average salary is about double the national average would easily shipped off shore to Chinese LENR factory production facilities. The American population could not stand such an economic and political shock. Letting the American car industry to go under is only a mere shadow of what will happen when Chinese LENR is in full swing. America will enter a deep depression with little prospects of competing in world markets. Plutocracy controlled Capital flow worldwide will be redirected to LENR production in China where most of the future LENR RD will take place. America will pay a heavy price for the contempt that they have shown to LENR and those who worked on it over these many years. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I always welcome your optimism about the future, Jed, and you can be counted on to give the counter argument. However, I think you are missing several unique features of LENR that will cause the future to be different from how normal events take place. Unlike most technologies, even the new ones, a huge basic understanding is normally in place on which understanding of the new idea can be constructed. This is not the case with LENR. No one has a basic understanding how it works. Success has resulted from luck. In addition, the number of people who have even a rudimentary understanding is very limited and growing older by the minuet. No effective way exists in the West to teach this limited knowledge
Re: [Vo]:AXIL's Efitorial
Ed Storms, yes it is gloom and the only reason is disbelieve in a positive attitude.I agree that it has similarities with global warming problems, when it comes to difficulties to communicate. Something several people has mentioned. The big difference is that LENR has a positive message with promise of abundant energy. Global warming is just requiring to lower the standard. The right communication to the people first enjoying benefits and who has money. You do not need to convince the ignorant. You need to sell the message to those having a benefit. I think sometimes greed and secrecy is in the way for selling the idea. I have followed the LENR discussion for at least three years. I still have problems to tell third party whyLENR is plausible. The information is guarded for no good reason. I define success a little different than you do. I think success always is personal. The success is based on achieving personal goals at a rate predetermined. (Paul J. Meyer has a good definition see the web. In my meaning the outcome depends on ones attitude toward solving the problem. I think there is a fantastic knowledge and this blog is full of ideas to explain the science. I only grasp a fraction. However, there is nobody selling the concept. I understand that it would be good if we could buy half the congress. Not a practical shoestring budget - those guys want $. Why are you concerned about that it happens first in the US? I agree we have the best capacity for many reasons and if played right will have a major impact on the implementation. Just find partners that can see the benefit. I do not live in Sweden - I am born there and spent 45 years there but today I am a US citizen (CA). I have some experience and understand why Sweden has an interest. In short spoiled with hydropower handling all electrical needs at a low price. Plenty of Nuclear plants, which we decided to close down because of the early detection of the disposal problem. They should all have been closed but it is a little slow. Now they have a need. It is not such a smart leadership it is the need. This time of the year plus minus 3 months I am glad to not live in Sweden - it is darn dark. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Lennant, this is neither gloom or self-fulfilling prophecy. It is an effort to get the ignorant to pay attention to a serious threat. I used global warming as an example because it has the same characteristics. The ignorant will not accept the advice of knowledgeable people in this example or about the threat of LENR. Some excuse is always found to ignore good advice. Success in every part of life depends on making the correct decision, both personally and by a country. The failures are always obvious after the fact. However, during the process of self destruction, a small group are always aware of what is happening and the mistakes being made. The outcome will depend on whether they are listened to or ignored. Your choice. And yes, I agree Sweden is the right place in the West for the technology to develop. You should be proud that the leaders in your country understand the problem. Unfortunately, I do not live in Sweden. Ed Storms On Jan 5, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Doom and gloom. Self fulfilling prophecy. I think you are right to be cautious. I agree with that there are reasons to say that China and other not so well off countries will be able to swing forward because they might see the opportunity and are 'hungry'.. In itself that is positive. I think you will agree, there is enough energy to share. To believe that China or any third world country would have an advantage is painting the devil on the wall (and become scared). Reality is that the west has an advantage (as usual). I agree with that this is a situation when the west might lose some of its advantages. No, I did not say become less prosperous as I think a progression in the not so well off countries is a long term advantage. I usually agree with Ed Storms but I cannot support your logic here. You are obviously concerned about global warming and how we do not do enough. LENR would be a fantastic step forward maybe enough to revert what bad we have done for some time to increase the temperature on the planet. The global warming ideas has been sold poorly and there is no basic support from anyone not involved in science. LENR could be a popular way to achieve the goal. See the possibilities and react accordingly. I think Jed's comments are reality. This is not the days of Copernicus. The internet is here. Now is the question what to do? Hang up your hat as we are too
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in the sixties). I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot hang behind the load and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead the horse. It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on the wrong variable. On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also
