date:20141212

Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Your last  comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any
 inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. 


 Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited
 without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be
 purchased by any adult.)   Such action is taken for the good of the
 society.


You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe.
They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in
automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as
explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have
to be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used
for mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want
your neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile.
However, small robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing
machine is.

People who are worried about the fact that robots reduce labor should first
concentrate on machines that already do that. Probably, the washing machine
has reduced labor more that any other machine in the last 100 years. Let's
launch a campaign to regulate washing machines and limit their use, to put
all those housewives and maids back to work with washboards.

Abolishing washing machines would be absurd, obviously. It would be equally
absurd to restrict the use of Roomba room sweepers and the Baxter robot.
Yet we know that over the next 20 to 50 years such things will evolve into
robots that take away almost all human jobs. Baxter has no measurable
impact on employment today. When the first few thousand washing machines
were installed around 1910, I am sure they had no impact on overall
employment. It wasn't until hundreds of thousands were installed that they
began to tell. By that time it would have been too late to ban them, if
anyone had thought to do that. By the time the Roomba and Baxter machines
evolve into more practical machines and their numbers increase enough to
have an impact on employment, everyone will be used to having them around.
People would not more allow the government to restrict their numbers or use
than they would allow the government to ban washing machines today.

The Internet, Amazon.com and Google have gutted the newspaper business,
book publishing, bookstores and the Post Office. This outcome was a sure
thing ten years ago. I and many others knew it was inevitable. Overall,
these innovations greatly reduced employment. Does anyone imagine they
might have been stopped -- or even slowed down -- for that reason?

Along similar lines, the coal industry is pulling out all the stops to
prevent the use of wind and solar power, because wind and solar are now
competitive with coal in many markets. The moment it becomes generally
known that cold fusion is real, I am sure that oil, coal, wind and solar
companies will go ape shit and fight cold fusion with every means at their
disposal. They will advertise like the dickens and they will buy every
Congressman and Senator. That is inevitable. However, if we can make the
public understand that cold fusion will save people tremendous sums of
money, far more than any tax break, then I am sure the energy industry will
lose that fight.

- Jed

[Vo]:LENR discussion and info

2014-12-12 Thread Peter Gluck

I have now published this

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/daily-shared-lenr-discussions-december.html

The most interesting info (?) will come later this night

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

2014-12-12 Thread Bob Cook

Jed--

I hope you are correct.  

Your argument about the washing machines probably allowed people to go to work, 
not lose their jobs.   Particularly, housewives and husbands--I might add--.  
 Their UNPAID efforts were no longer needed at home and they got jobs to 
provided financial support for the family.  The welfare of the society was 
improved as a result.  

My only argument is that, if some technical advancement is undesirable from the 
standpoint of welfare in the society, it could become regulated or even 
out-lawed.Robots are no exception.  As you point out some may be ok and 
some not.  This is where the DEFINITION of the undesirable ones is important.  

You seem to imply that only the quality of safety is ok to assure by 
regulation.  My argument is that there are other values (environment values, 
for example)  in the society that could become the focus of regulation and laws 
including the welfare and happiness of the natural persons  in the society.   
Even aesthetic values like the volume of music being played or the noise levels 
of engines or wind mills or any machine or even natural person's voices or 
mobile amplification devices or other non-safety related things may become 
and/or now regulated.   

I can imagine that a time may come when any condition that improves efficiency 
in manufacturing relative to the use of a natural persons labor and thereby 
reduces the need for employment may become regulated or out-lawed, even if such 
unemployment is caused by  a robot as you define it.   

I would say this is already happening in some communities, particularly in 
Europe, where the efficiency of fast-food restaurants is not allowed in favor 
of traditional eating establishments that provide opportunities for traditional 
food preparation and serving and allows for full employment of the local folks 
involved in retail food preparation.

I was reading where the automation/efficiency  of egg production by hens is 
taking a hit in some areas by laws coming on the books to protect the hens from 
poor living conditions.  Pigs are also finding better living conditions in some 
areas.  It may even happen with respect to natural persons in some places via 
regulation of industries and activities that provide employment and improve the 
general welfare, robots be damned.  

Such a condition may be invoked by a state via requirements on charters of 
corporations, permitting their existence and/or operation.  This method of 
control, as well as legal regulation,  is another possible means of creating 
jobs in a community.  Actions by corporations that reduce employment such as 
use of robots could be disallowed by charter, thus cutting into possible 
profits/efficiency  of the corporation.   

As more and more people become adversely affected with the growing population 
and improved efficiency of robots  negating substantial employment,  I hope 
the society will take action, (regardless of the perceived rights of 
corporations or some few individuals to make a profit by eliminating jobs)  to 
correct the adversity.   I do not consider the US Constitution disallows such 
action through the Bill of Rights or any other provision.   

 Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?


  Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

Your last  comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any 
inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. 


Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited 
without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be 
purchased by any adult.)   Such action is taken for the good of the society. 


  You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe. 
They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in 
automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as 
explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have to 
be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used for 
mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want your 
neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile. However, small 
robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing machine is.


  People who are worried about the fact that robots reduce labor should first 
concentrate on machines that already do that. Probably, the washing machine has 
reduced labor more that any other machine in the last 100 years. Let's launch a 
campaign to regulate washing machines and limit their use, to put all those 
housewives and maids back to work with washboards.


  Abolishing washing machines would be absurd, obviously. It would be equally 
absurd to restrict the use of Roomba room sweepers and the Baxter robot. Yet we 
know that over the next 20 to 50

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

Nothing is inherently safe.
Everything is potentially dangerous.
Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing
as safe sex.
Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.
One way to minimize the dangers is to enact laws that can be used to
regulate behaviours and substances. Another way is through the promotion of
self-respect and respect for others.
Nurturing self-respect and respect for others probably does more to protect
people from the potential dangers associated with our ancient drives to
copulate and eat and drink then laws will ever do.

Harry

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Your last  comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any
 inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. 


 Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited
 without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be
 purchased by any adult.)   Such action is taken for the good of the
 society.


 You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe.
 They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in
 automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as
 explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have
 to be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used
 for mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want
 your neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile.
 However, small robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing
 machine is.

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Your argument about the washing machines probably allowed people to go to
 work, not lose their jobs.


Many housemaids made a living doing laundry and other housework in the 19th
century. There were so many that magazines at the time announced a manpower
(womanpower) crisis, called the Irish maid problem.



 My only argument is that, if some technical advancement is undesirable
 from the standpoint of welfare in the society, it could become regulated or
 even out-lawed.Robots are no exception.


First, that would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. We have always
allowed technology that is undesirable, as long as it is not hazardous. The
government has no business regulating or banning things merely because they
are undesirable or immoral. Second, whether the outcome is beneficial or
deleterious depends entirely on politics and upon our will. Whether robots
will be good or bad for society depends on how we choose to use them.



 You seem to imply that only the quality of safety is ok to assure by
 regulation.  My argument is that there are other values (environment
 values, for example)  . . .


I said destruction in general not just safety. Environmental hazards and
pollution are bad even if they hurt no one. For that matter, anything that
hurts property values is bad. Anything that annoys people such as loud
music must be regulated. However, a robot working in your house does not
affect your neighbors, and it is no one's business but your own.


I can imagine that a time may come when any condition that improves
 efficiency in manufacturing relative to the use of a natural persons
 labor and thereby reduces the need for employment may become regulated or
 out-lawed, even if such unemployment is caused by  a robot as you define it.


That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by
capitalistic methods.


I would say this is already happening in some communities, particularly in
 Europe, where the efficiency of fast-food restaurants is not allowed in
 favor of traditional eating establishments that provide opportunities for
 traditional food preparation and serving and allows for full employment of
 the local folks involved in retail food preparation.


That is insane. That reminds me of the Bastiat's Negative Railroad, or his
Candle Maker's Petition:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html



 As more and more people become adversely affected with the growing
 population and improved efficiency of robots  negating substantial
 employment,  I hope the society will take action, (regardless of the
 perceived rights of corporations or some few individuals to make a profit
 by eliminating jobs)  to correct the adversity.


Suppose I persuade people to work for me for free, because I am a cult
leader (or more realistically because I need people to help me work on cold
fusion). That is economically bad for those people and for the rest of
society. I'm getting labor for nothing in return. Functionally, it is the
same as me buying a robot, or an improved computer program to speed up the
work. For example at this moment I'm dictating to NaturallySpeaking rather
than having a human secretary take dictation and type this message. Would
you pass a law preventing me from doing this?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Nothing is inherently safe.
 Everything is potentially dangerous.
 Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing
 as safe sex.
 Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.


But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe.
Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately.
You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful --
whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That
is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

I wrote:


 That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by
 capitalistic methods.


Okay not exactly capitalistic by present-day standards. I mean handing out
money to everyone. Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems
predicated on the exchange of human labor for goods and services. With
advanced robots, human labor will be worth nothing, so we we must devise an
economy based on something else. It is easy to imagine other systems that
preserve freedom and that impose no special burden on anyone. My favorite
idea is what is proposed in this discussion: let us hand out money to
everyone, no strings attached, for nothing in return. Why not? If robots
produce the wealth, why no not just hand it out? It seems like a no-brainer
to me.

Wealthy people will yell that they are being unfairly treated under this
system. As a wealthy person myself, let me suggest we should not listen to
what wealthy people say about money. It is like listening to diet advice
from fat people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

2014-12-12 Thread Bob Cook

Jed

I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no gray, 
in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you consider rights. 
 

I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some things--water 
as you indicate.  Water production--mining is controlled in many states.  In 
Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water.  It use is not controlled 
in many areas, but it can be controlled if the general welfare is endangered 
because of its use and/or production.

I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots.  Some are 
good and some are bad.   The bad ones may be regulated in the future.   Even 
multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence may 
become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries lose their 
jobs. 

I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision the 
future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the future 
is not mundane.   I would guess we might agree on this point.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?


  H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


Nothing is inherently safe.
Everything is potentially dangerous.
Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing 
as safe sex. 
Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.


  But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. 
Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You 
have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is 
nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives 
are regulated and a glass of water is not.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:More from Takashashi about mixing

I suggest you ignore Shanahan's blather. Let him go after some definitive
work such as McKubre, Storms or Miles. Kitamura's calorimetry was not
impressive years ago, although I doubt it was as bad as Shanahan imagines.
It is lately improved and the results are also better. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedl.pdf#page=287

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

Ok, let's explore options...

1: Hand out free money, the devil is in the details it seems, but done
right this is promising.

2: Get paid for work a robot does, in the end this is similar as getting
money for free, except it requires too much initiative, outlay and luck.
You need your robot to be in demand, in good repair, have the outlay to buy
one...
Though ok as a backup to earn extra, but maybe not the best option as a
backup. BTW vending machines are robots you can get paid for.

3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not
unlimitedly.
People who don't work would essentially live a moneyless life.
This idea has plenty of downsides that I can see, but an upside would be
that the motivation of wanting extra stuff that only money could buy could
be a drive to earn money by being productive somehow.


On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by
 capitalistic methods.


 Okay not exactly capitalistic by present-day standards. I mean handing out
 money to everyone. Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems
 predicated on the exchange of human labor for goods and services. With
 advanced robots, human labor will be worth nothing, so we we must devise an
 economy based on something else. It is easy to imagine other systems that
 preserve freedom and that impose no special burden on anyone. My favorite
 idea is what is proposed in this discussion: let us hand out money to
 everyone, no strings attached, for nothing in return. Why not? If robots
 produce the wealth, why no not just hand it out? It seems like a no-brainer
 to me.

 Wealthy people will yell that they are being unfairly treated under this
 system. As a wealthy person myself, let me suggest we should not listen to
 what wealthy people say about money. It is like listening to diet advice
 from fat people.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible.

And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a
bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of
productivity.

Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards
abundance.
The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around
participation in production.

As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for
idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely.

As such different models need to be discussed.
Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the
free money idea.

So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts.
Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by
humanity for a very long time if ever.

Unlimited free stuff, just take it.   Might not produce waste if people get
over hoarding.   Money might play little part in many peoples lives.

Or

An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs.

Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse
unlimited free stuff.

The thing that is limited is land.

John





On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Jed

 I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no
 gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you
 consider rights.

 I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some
 things--water as you indicate.  Water production--mining is controlled in
 many states.  In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water.  It
 use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the
 general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production.

 I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots.  Some
 are good and some are bad.   The bad ones may be regulated in the future.
 Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence
 may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries
 lose their jobs.

 I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision
 the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the
 future is not mundane.   I would guess we might agree on this point.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

  H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



  Nothing is inherently safe.
 Everything is potentially dangerous.
 Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing
 as safe sex.
 Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.


 But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe.
 Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately.
 You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful --
 whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That
 is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not
unlimitedly.

It is easier and more efficient to hand out money. People who run soup
kitchens and disaster relief say so. Given a choice between donations of
canned goods from families and donations of cash money, they prefer the
latter. Handing out actual physical goods causes many problems because
people often do not need or want the goods you happen to have on hand.

People who don't work would essentially live a moneyless life.
This idea has plenty of downsides that I can see, but an upside would be
that the motivation of wanting extra stuff that only money could buy could
be a drive to earn money by being productive somehow.

You can accomplish the same thing by limiting the amount of money you hand
out. It has been suggested that given the present state of the US economy
and technology, a limit of ~$10,000 per year per person would be a good
target. I do not know the details but that sounds plausible. Obviously we
cannot go directly to a system where everyone gets lavish sums of money
such as $100,000 a year. That would cause inflation, and it would also mean
that many important but tedious or dirty jobs will not be done.

In the distant future when robots are perfected I see no reason why people
should not get $100,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). Heck, if the
robots can make enough stuff without hurting the ecology, give everyone $1
million a year. Who cares? The only situation I want to avoid is where my
neighbor buys a dozen Rolls-Royces and parks them on the street in front of
my house, or builds a giant McMansion that blocks my view. Like the
situation in Los Angeles where people living in 20,000 square-foot mansions
are complaining about other people building 50,000 square-foot mansions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/style/in-los-angeles-a-nimby-battle-pits-millionaires-vs-billionaires.html

As long as people's consumption does not take away resources from other
people, or bother me, or hurt the ecology, I don't care how much they get
or how much they consume. Given today's limited resources, it is morally
wrong to live in a gigantic house with hundreds of rooms, or to spend
millions on your wardrobe. But in the future when we have unlimited
resources such behavior will be at worst childish, or silly, or a sign of
mental illness. Probably that kind of conspicuous consumption will lose its
charm. When anyone can do such things, most people will not bother. I do
not see anything inherently pleasurable about living in a house with dozens
of empty rooms.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

I just had another idea.

Self sufficiency.

The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots.
And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden...
Maybe a goat to keep the grass short, provide milk and maybe eventually
meat...

Ok, that sounds like a stretch, but what about self sufficiency over 20 to
100 people?
Only really to share resources over enough land to have a range of cattle,
fruit tree types.

Each community could experiment with means of fair distribution.

John

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible.

 And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a
 bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of
 productivity.

 Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards
 abundance.
 The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around
 participation in production.

 As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for
 idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely.

 As such different models need to be discussed.
 Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the
 free money idea.

 So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts.
 Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by
 humanity for a very long time if ever.

 Unlimited free stuff, just take it.   Might not produce waste if people
 get over hoarding.   Money might play little part in many peoples lives.

 Or

 An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs.

 Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse
 unlimited free stuff.

 The thing that is limited is land.

 John





 On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Jed

 I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no
 gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you
 consider rights.

 I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some
 things--water as you indicate.  Water production--mining is controlled in
 many states.  In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water.  It
 use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the
 general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production.

 I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots.  Some
 are good and some are bad.   The bad ones may be regulated in the future.
 Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence
 may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries
 lose their jobs.

 I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision
 the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the
 future is not mundane.   I would guess we might agree on this point.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

  H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



  Nothing is inherently safe.
 Everything is potentially dangerous.
 Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such
 thing as safe sex.
 Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.


 But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe.
 Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately.
 You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful --
 whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That
 is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

I just had another idea.

 Self sufficiency.

 The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots.
 And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden...


Let me again point out that Arthur Clarke described this and all of the
other ideas in this discussion in Profiles of the Future in 1963. He
described a replicator which is the ultimate form of 3D printer:

The advent of the replicator would mean the end of all factories, and
perhaps all transportation of raw materials and all farming. The entire
structure of industry and commerce, as it is now organized, would cease to
exist. Every family would produce all that it needed on the spot—as,
indeed, it has had to do throughout most of human history. The present
machine era of mass production would then be seen as a brief interregnum
between two far longer periods of self-sufficiency, and the only valuable
items of exchange would be the matrices, or recordings, which had to be
inserted in the replicator to control its creations.


. . . A society based on the replicator would be so completely different
from ours that the present debate between capitalism and communism would
become quite meaningless. All material possessions would be literally as
cheap as dirt. Soiled handkerchiefs, diamond tiaras, Mona Lisas totally
indistinguishable from the original, once-worn mink stoles, half-consumed
bottles of the most superb champagnes—all would go back into the hopper
when they were no longer required. Even the furniture in the house of the
future might cease to exist when it was not actually in use.


At first sight, it might seem that nothing could be of any real value in
this utopia of infinite riches—this world beyond the wildest dreams of
Aladdin. This is a superficial reaction, such as might be expected from a
tenth century monk if you told him that one day every man could possess all
the books he could possibly read. The invention of the printing press has
not made books less valuable, or less appreciated, because they are now
among the commonest instead of the rarest of objects. Nor has music lost
its charms, now that any amount can be obtained at the turn of a switch. .
. .


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

Jed says:
*Probably that kind of conspicuous consumption will lose its charm. When
anyone can do such things, most people will not bother. I do not see
anything inherently pleasurable about living in a house with dozens of
empty rooms.*

I quite agree. I think currently it is the meaning those things represent,
the success, power and privilege all because scarcity is the default.

But money is like getting the high score in a computer game, it drives many
to make the most. Removing it from being required for most things or even
doing away with it all together might solve some ills.

It strikes me that in the end the only thing that can't ever be unlimited
is buying human attention.
Weather it be a therapist, coach/trainer or prostitute, sure technological
versions of all these things could exist but they could never be the same.

John

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not
unlimitedly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/style/in-los-angeles-a-nimby-battle-pits-millionaires-vs-billionaires.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

What he did not envision is that electronic books are music are often
freely available either by or inspite of the publishers wishes.

This is not a bad thing though, music created by those who want to create
great music has always sounded better than commercially focused efforts.

And the same goes for books.

And we should consider that such replication already occurs, except
commercial interests have got in the way.
Plants and animals are precisely such self creating pattern machines which
theoretically produce such abundance.

Farming has always produced relative abundance, and in a way this was the
first labour saving activity, not that there is no effort, but clearly
effort is reduced over hunting and scavenging.

I guess we have been on this path for a long time.

All these promises of the future seem to also have existed when land was
freely available and people owned their own little farm.
If only they also had a washing machine, dishwasher, car,
internet/phone/TV...

John

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I just had another idea.

 Self sufficiency.

 The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots.
 And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden...


 Let me again point out that Arthur Clarke described this and all of the
 other ideas in this discussion in Profiles of the Future in 1963. He
 described a replicator which is the ultimate form of 3D printer:

 The advent of the replicator would mean the end of all factories, and
 perhaps all transportation of raw materials and all farming. The entire
 structure of industry and commerce, as it is now organized, would cease to
 exist. Every family would produce all that it needed on the spot—as,
 indeed, it has had to do throughout most of human history. The present
 machine era of mass production would then be seen as a brief interregnum
 between two far longer periods of self-sufficiency, and the only valuable
 items of exchange would be the matrices, or recordings, which had to be
 inserted in the replicator to control its creations.


 . . . A society based on the replicator would be so completely different
 from ours that the present debate between capitalism and communism would
 become quite meaningless. All material possessions would be literally as
 cheap as dirt. Soiled handkerchiefs, diamond tiaras, Mona Lisas totally
 indistinguishable from the original, once-worn mink stoles, half-consumed
 bottles of the most superb champagnes—all would go back into the hopper
 when they were no longer required. Even the furniture in the house of the
 future might cease to exist when it was not actually in use.


 At first sight, it might seem that nothing could be of any real value in
 this utopia of infinite riches—this world beyond the wildest dreams of
 Aladdin. This is a superficial reaction, such as might be expected from a
 tenth century monk if you told him that one day every man could possess all
 the books he could possibly read. The invention of the printing press has
 not made books less valuable, or less appreciated, because they are now
 among the commonest instead of the rarest of objects. Nor has music lost
 its charms, now that any amount can be obtained at the turn of a switch. .
 . .


 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

What he [Clarke] did not envision is that electronic books are music are
 often freely available either by or inspite of the publishers wishes.


He did, actually. Maybe not in Profiles but he saw that coming long
before most  people did. As an author himself, he was not happy about it!

As a programmer, I have never been thrilled by the ease with which software
can be copied.


Farming has always produced relative abundance, and in a way this was the
 first labour saving activity, not that there is no effort, but clearly
 effort is reduced over hunting and scavenging.

 I guess we have been on this path for a long time.


Indeed, this has always been the ultimate goal of technology. This is the
inevitable outcome. It may turn out to be a nightmare. People may be
afflicted by ennui, with no goals or purpose left in life. As the saying
goes, be careful what you wish for. The dangers were best described by
George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier, in the section that begins,
Every sensitive person has moments when he is suspicious of machinery and
to some extent of physical science. . . .

See also the part below that, beginning: The function of the machine is to
save work. In a fully mechanized world all the dull drudgery will be done
by machinery, leaving us free for more interesting pursuits. . . .

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200391.txt

I say that's not our problem. Let our grandchildren and great grandchildren
deal with it. One thing at a time.



 All these promises of the future seem to also have existed when land was
 freely available and people owned their own little farm.
 If only they also had a washing machine, dishwasher, car,
 internet/phone/TV...


I expect land will once again be available in unlimited amounts once we
perfect the space elevator and we terraform Mars.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:


 Nothing is inherently safe.
 Everything is potentially dangerous.
 Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing
 as safe sex.
 Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately.


 But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe.
 Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately.
 You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful --
 whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That
 is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not.



Most people know how to drink water without choking so there is no need to
be alert and careful in that case. But in other cases where someone has a
swallowing disorder you need to be alert and careful.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:23 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible.

And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a
bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of
productivity.

Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards
abundance.

I used to think scarcity and abundance could be understood as objective
states of the world, but after listening to Evelin Lindner (1,2) I now
think they are more a matter of perception which are driven by real or
perceived threats to security. If one wants a world of abundance then it is
necessary to understand what is needed for security. Otherwise the claimed
state of scarcity which we are supposedly leaving behind thanks to
capitalism and technology will prevail indefinitely no matter how many
smart robots are built or how much energy becomes available.

1 - A Dignity Economy. Talk given by Evelin Lindner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRRlIQP2jzs

2 - How the Human Rights Ideal of Equal Dignity Separates
Humiliation from Shame
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/evelin/HowtheHumanRightsIdealofDignitySeparatesHumiliat.pdf

The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around
participation in production.

As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for
idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely.

As such different models need to be discussed.
Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the
free money idea.

So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts.
Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by
humanity for a very long time if ever.

Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people
get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives.

An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs.

Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse
unlimited free stuff.

The thing that is limited is land.

Knowledge is the new frontier. Knowledge of yourself, of others, of the
human animal, of other animals, of the Earth and the Cosmos.

Harry

[Vo]:Regions of Operation of Thermal Feedback Systems

2014-12-12 Thread David Roberson

As time permits I have been running computer simulations of the behavior of an 
ECAT type of device in order to better understand its operating states.  It 
appears that there are three distinct regions of operation that are encountered 
which have well defined characteristics.  A brief discussion of these modes 
follows.

1.  This mode of operation is when the amount of positive thermal feedback is 
limited or non existent altogether.  A dummy system such as currently being 
measured by the MFMP team falls into this category at the very low end.  In 
general the temperature of the outer surface as well as the inner core area 
will rise smoothly as the input power to the device is increased.  Radiation, 
convection, and conduction of heat power away from the core exceeds any 
internally generated power to such a degree that it is sometimes difficult to 
determine that any excess power is generated at all.

Any operational temperature and its associated input drive power can be reached 
and stable operation at that point achieved.  COP will generally be limited to 
a modest value for a device that operates within this mode to likely less than 
4.   The latest independent third party testing indicated that the unit they 
examined probably operated in this manner.  Unfortunately, the scientists did 
not have an opportunity to carefully adjust the input power and monitor the 
output power to generate a stable curve with several static operating points to 
verify the mode.

One characteristic of this operating region is that the temperature and thus 
output power will rapidly rise as the input is slowly increased if the feedback 
is adjusted to approach operational levels of the next region(2).  The data 
that was presented suggested that this was the situation for that test.  Note 
the very rapid rise in output power that they saw for a modest change in input 
power.

2.  The second mode of operation appears to be the ideal one to utilize if a 
large COP is desired and it is necessary for the device to cool back to room 
temperature once input drive power is removed.  I consider the region as 
defined by the presence of a negative resistance region occurring within the 
operational range of the device.  The negative resistance section is limited in 
scope so that there is no temperature of operation existing at which the 
internally generated heat power exceeds the power exiting away from the core by 
radiation, convection, and conduction.  This limited negative resistance range 
ensures that the device will cool down once input drive is removed.

One very noticeable characteristic of a device operating within this region is 
that it is impossible to keep the core temperature constant at any constant 
fixed drive power level for operation within the negative resistance portion of 
the device.  At any static long term fixed input drive level, the core 
temperature and output power will vary until operation reaches one of the 
positive slope regions.  You can use a PWM input drive waveform to control the 
transition through the negative region, but you will not be able to keep it 
confined in that section without modulation of the input drive power.

Very large values of COP are possible for a system that operates in this 
fashion.  Of course, the more positive feedback that is designed into the 
system, the higher the possible COP.  My simulations suggest that achieving a 
COP of 10 or more would not be too difficult in this mode provided the feedback 
is accurately controlled and operation approaches the third mode.  Also, the 
ECAT will always cool back to room temperature once the input drive power is 
removed as would be normally desired.

3.  Operation within the third region can truly be considered SSM by anyone's 
definition.  A device of this type has increased positive feedback as compared 
to one that is confined to the second region(2) discussed above.  As in number 
2 above a region of negative resistance operation is located within the curve 
that defines core temperature versus input power.  The difference between this 
mode and that one is that the feedback is increased to such an extent that a 
latching of temperature and output power occurs even when the input drive power 
is totally removed.  You can drive the device into a state where power is 
constantly being supplied to the load until some additional control action, 
such as water flooding, is required to initiate a final cooling down.

An interesting characteristic that a device that operates within this region 
will demonstrate is that as the input power is slowly increased the output 
power will initially rise smoothly.  Once the input reaches the portion of the 
curve containing the negative resistance region the positive thermal feedback 
takes over and rapidly drives the core temperature higher as the output power 
rises.  The system should settle at a high output power point that is located 
within the positive resistance region

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?

I wrote:


 Most people know how to drink water without choking so there is no need to
 be alert and careful in that case. But in other cases where someone has a
 swallowing disorder you need to be alert and careful.

 Harry



Technically I should have said without aspirating instead of without
choking.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?