Transmutation being 1 in 10^6 is good enough for me.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
.
This doesn't explain why the reaction stopped at 62Ni.
The one particle is one in a million. The transmutation result is just a
result of chance.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E36EQ
Thanks Harry. This was fascinating to watch and very informative too. They
probably are on to something. A paradigm shift, I'd say. I hope these
23 matches
Mail list logo
