Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Eventually the price itself is a tremendous indicator. My experience with non-monetary prediction markets is that the pathological popular belief system will prevail until the last minute and then the price will reflect reality. What is needed is a prediction market that rewards one not simply for having purchased as a low price, but also for the time integral of the misvaluation of the popular pathological belief system.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: My experience with non-monetary prediction markets is that the pathological popular belief system will prevail until the last minute and then the price will reflect reality. Yes. When public opinion is wildly wrong, the adjustment to reality tends to be sudden. It is catastrophic. It is usually triggered by a dramatic event that few people anticipate. For example, the stock market crashes. People who were in Japan in 1945 have often said they never expected the nation would surrender and the war would end. Some thought they would win. Others thought that every last person would be killed in fighting or by starvation. Good news about technology tends to sneak up on people. The advantages of automobiles, computers and the Internet was apparent to early adopters, and then gradually the rest of society caught on. Only the airplane was a major surprise. Cold fusion will not follow this pattern because for many people it is an unmitigated disaster. Especially for the first people who will be affected by it. Prominent scientists who have opposed it will see their reputations and careers destroyed. Energy companies will face ruin. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:05, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Energy companies will face ruin. I wonder whether they can slow that process down through a well-conceived campaign of lobbying for commercial and industrial regulation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
One issue that will emerge is that many of the electrical power companies are regulated by states to ensure a well defined profit. As many leave the grid, the remaining customers will have to pay more. It would not surprise me to find laws enacted to slow down the departures. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2013 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:05, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Energy companies will face ruin. I wonder whether they can slow that process down through a well-conceived campaign of lobbying for commercial and industrial regulation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Energy companies will face ruin. I wonder whether they can slow that process down through a well-conceived campaign of lobbying for commercial and industrial regulation. I am sure they will try. Whether they succeed or not will depend upon the will of the public. The newspapers and Hollywood have fought to prevent digital piracy. They have been trying to impose standards to prevent copying such as DRM, and they have asked Congress to put more teeth into copyright enforcement. This has largely been a losing battle. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Jed, I think prediction markets actually CAN be useful to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, and my article about How I Made Money in Cold Fusion is precisely aimed at that. If I had been given the 2nd contract aimed at the replication of Dr. Mossier-Boss's triple tracks in CR-39, the price would not have been 3:1 or 4:1 against it, but probably more like 1:1 or even 1:2 FOR it. Because when it comes to money, people act differently than what they say. Just look at what Blaze has done in the last few weeks on this forum alone. He's gone from 10:1 against Rossi to 1:1 and 1:2 against Rossi. When it comes to putting your money down where your mouth is, people really tighten up. And for the general public, it would be a mystery why Intrade's odds for the CR-39 thing were so oblique, and it would be evidence in and of itself that LENR is quite real. The cool thing about Intrade was that it was a chance for me to put my money where my mouth was, and for those hyperskeptics to put theirs down as well (taking my money). Their mouth nowhere near matched their money placement. Basically, if we would have had a few rounds of LENR contracts on Intrade, the buzz would get out that LENR is real. Period. That you lose money betting against it. That is a powerful statement. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. Prediction markets might be a useful way to predict whether the public will believe that a breakthrough exists, or whether it will continue denying the facts. I do not know if these markets are good for that purpose. I do not know enough about them. I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. . . . You cannot predict that. You can only judge it by a careful evaluation of the Levi report and by looking at others who have produced Ni-H cold fusion. Predicting is the wrong word in any case. A prediction applies to the future. Rossi's experiments have already happened. You are trying to determine whether they proved what he claims. To do that, you must use the tools of science and engineering, not the tools of a prediction market. Or, you might be trying to determine whether other people will believe him at a given date in the future. That is an entirely different matter. People did not believe the Wrights until 1908, but obviously they did actually fly on many occasions between 1903 and 1908. People's beliefs have absolutely no bearing what is true. Beliefs cannot affect reality. It works both ways. If you were betting on the outcome of an election, you would not try to use the laws of thermodynamics, or a manual on calorimetry. You might use a prediction market though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I think prediction markets actually CAN be useful to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, . . . Sorry, but I still say this is a mechanism to measure people's opinions, or their feelings. Opinions and feelings have no bearing on experimental reality. That reality exists independently of the human mind. The only way to measure it is with instruments. You are measuring public opinion vis a vis cold fusion. This is an interesting thing to measure. It is worthwhile. I would even say it is important to measure, and I would appreciate if people would keep me informed. A prediction market seems to be remarkably reliable way to measure it. But it does not and cannot in any way reflect that scientific reality of various cold fusion claims. As I said, trying to measure that with a prediction market is like trying to predict an election by measuring temperatures. It is the wrong tool. Another way to keep tabs on public opinion regarding cold fusion is watch the mass media through Google News Alerts, or to watch Wikipedia. Based on those two metrics we are no closer to success than we were 20 years ago. This tells me that success can only be achieved by methods that do not call for mass media participation. Fortunately, with the Internet, communication is easier than it used to be. That is why the mass media has been weakened. That is why, for example, the Boston Globe was sold for $70 million a few days ago after being purchased in 1993 for $1.1 billion, and why Jeff Bezos just bought the Washington Post for $250 million. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: . . Sorry, but I still say this is a mechanism to measure people's opinions, or their feelings. ***No, it is NOT. When I put up the contract for whether or not Dr. Arata's experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed journal, it had zero to do with people's opinions or feelings. It either was gonna happen or it wasn't. Lotsa people had some opinions feelings but the actual TRADING of the contract reflected a level of understanding of LENR that went way beyond the idiotic words of skeptopaths. Opinions and feelings have no bearing on experimental reality. ***Of course. But if someone is stupid enough to put their money down on that kind of factual outcome, I'll take it all day long twice on Sundays. Eventually the price itself is a tremendous indicator. For instance, let's say you were CERTAIN that a black, inexperienced most-liberal-member-of-the-senate could NEVER be president, you'd put up as much money as you could against such a contract. And if there were thousands of Intraders like you, the price volume would reflect that. However, once he's elected, you lose your money. The FINAL price is what has bearing on experimental reality, i.e., election results. So, then how much would your contract sell for when he runs for RE-election? You'd know that your own opinions were based upon emotion rather than the facts on the ground, and the price would reflect that. Interestingly enough, the price for Obama's contract DID reflect that reality until the exit poll returns started coming in. That reality exists independently of the human mind. The only way to measure it is with instruments. ***So a person who has tremendous confidence in Dr. Mossier-Boss and knowledge of how many journals would publish her peer-reviewed results would have a better perception of such a reality compared to someone who simply thinks LENR is voodoo science. Such trading contracts are very valuable as an indicator of what's going on at the knowledge-trading level. You are measuring public opinion vis a vis cold fusion. ***NO, you are not. If that were the case, then my contract would talk about public opinion results rather than peer reviewed journal publications and replication of a scientific finding. This is an interesting thing to measure. It is worthwhile.* ***Glad we agree. But it looks like you're sorta goin' round in circles.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, but I still say this is a mechanism to measure people's opinions, or their feelings. ***No, it is NOT. When I put up the contract for whether or not Dr. Arata's experiment would be replicated in a peer reviewed journal, it had zero to do with people's opinions or feelings. On the contrary, that outcome depends on the opinions of the journal editors. Many fine experiments are not replicated because people will not fund them, or they are not published because the editors are biased. These decisions are political, or emotional, or they are made to protect funding, or out of spite. All of the reasons are emotional. None have any connection to science per se. If you win a bet, it is because of emotional changes in people, not because of any underlying facts. If facts made any difference, every scientist on earth would be convinced that cold fusion is real. You are measuring public opinion vis a vis cold fusion. ***NO, you are not. If that were the case, then my contract would talk about public opinion results rather than peer reviewed journal publications and replication of a scientific finding. Whether a replication is done depends not on public opinion but rather on the opinions of a small number of people who control funding. You mentioned Pam Boss. In her case, an Admiral in Washington has stopped her research indefinitely. His opinion is the only one that counts. He has no knowledge of the science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: On the contrary, that outcome depends on the opinions of the journal editors. Many fine experiments are not replicated because people will not fund them, or they are not published because the editors are biased. ***Ok, that seems reasonable enough. The bet was dependent upon at least 2 of such editors overcoming their objections and publishing the replication. The fact that editors in the past had overcome their own internal objections on a few rare LENR developments in the past would indicate this was a rational bet, but not necessarily a guaranteed one. How would you have worded the contract differently? I was working with Carl Wolfden at Intrade on the wording of the contract so that it was as rational as possible, but perhaps you have further suggestions? These decisions are political, or emotional, or they are made to protect funding, or out of spite. All of the reasons are emotional. ***Not ALL of them. I agree that SOME of them are, perhaps even most of them, but certainly not ALL of them. At a certain point it becomes a rational inductive exercise -- obviously, since it involves future events which cannot be known. But isolating that aspect (future events), it is a valid rational approach to acknowledge that since editors had published LENR replications in the past, they would be inclined to publish them in the future. None have any connection to science per se. ***I disagree. There is still some connection to science, but it is a tenuous connection. If you win a bet, it is because of emotional changes in people, not because of any underlying facts. ***The fact that editors of journals had previously published LENR articles and replications is an indication that the emotional changes you're emphasizing have already taken place. If facts made any difference, every scientist on earth would be convinced that cold fusion is real. ***Facts do make a difference. But the vast majority of scientists are deductive in their approach. They wouldn't know how to do inductive reasoning if something bit them in the ass and it was up to their inductive processes to determine the best treatment to prevent their own death.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that editors in the past had overcome their own internal objections on a few rare LENR developments in the past would indicate this was a rational bet, but not necessarily a guaranteed one. Sure, I agree. It is reasonable to bet that people will act in a sane way, because in most cases they do. Civilization would not work otherwise. The world does seem crazy at times. Civilizations do collapse, the way Europe did in 1914 and 1939, but generally speaking most of the time the center holds. People do their jobs. Progress is made. How would you have worded the contract differently? The wording seems fine. I am not saying this is a bad bet. I am saying it is bet on human nature, not on the nature of cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
The discussion is about the value of prediction markets. It is not a bet on human nature, because as you have saidm It is reasonable to bet that people will act in a sane way, because in most cases they do. Civilization would not work otherwise. Human nature is not the variable in this bet. The outcome of whether it will be replicated published is the variable. And you're overlooking the cumulative effect of what can happen with these markets. Let's say Intrade wasn't overwhelmed, decided to go ahead with the 2nd contract about Dr. Boss's paper getting replicated, and even went forward with a 3rd paper getting replicated (such as, perhaps, Dr. Hagelstein's experiment). By the time those 3 contracts were paid out, the price for a LENR experiment getting replicated would start out at 1:3 instead of 3:1 against. That's where the value of such markets starts to come into play because someone like you who goes on the internet and advocates for LENR could actually make money doing it, and your critics would slink away, cowards that they are. blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? Jed wrote: I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that editors in the past had overcome their own internal objections on a few rare LENR developments in the past would indicate this was a rational bet, but not necessarily a guaranteed one. Sure, I agree. It is reasonable to bet that people will act in a sane way, because in most cases they do. Civilization would not work otherwise. The world does seem crazy at times. Civilizations do collapse, the way Europe did in 1914 and 1939, but generally speaking most of the time the center holds. People do their jobs. Progress is made. How would you have worded the contract differently? The wording seems fine. I am not saying this is a bad bet. I am saying it is bet on human nature, not on the nature of cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. ***A better contract would be that an independent scientific journal (to wit, eventually it was a beekeeping journal) would publish an article about the Wright brothers claiming they had achieved heavier-than-air controlled flight before 1907. Such a contract would have paid out in the Wright brothers' favor, even though Scientific American wasn't interested in publishing it. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. Prediction markets might be a useful way to predict whether the public will believe that a breakthrough exists, or whether it will continue denying the facts. I do not know if these markets are good for that purpose. I do not know enough about them. I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. . . . You cannot predict that. You can only judge it by a careful evaluation of the Levi report and by looking at others who have produced Ni-H cold fusion. Predicting is the wrong word in any case. A prediction applies to the future. Rossi's experiments have already happened. You are trying to determine whether they proved what he claims. To do that, you must use the tools of science and engineering, not the tools of a prediction market. Or, you might be trying to determine whether other people will believe him at a given date in the future. That is an entirely different matter. People did not believe the Wrights until 1908, but obviously they did actually fly on many occasions between 1903 and 1908. People's beliefs have absolutely no bearing what is true. Beliefs cannot affect reality. It works both ways. If you were betting on the outcome of an election, you would not try to use the laws of thermodynamics, or a manual on calorimetry. You might use a prediction market though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I agree with precisely what you say. No vote, nor market, nor consensus decide what is true of false... however the problem is not what IS, but what IS ACCEPTED, and what you DO. Taleb moto about flesh in the game is that if you have buck or flesh in the game, you invest more energy to control risk and expectation. What Roland Benabou said is that it is not enough... that you can be visibly sure, yet have all the data proving the contrary. I refuse to bet on LENR, and I'm afraid to invest, not because it might be false (I'm more afraid of asteroid rain ;- ), but because I know there is quite no limit to delusion, and I may lose while being right. North Korea show how far it can go. LENR show it lesser way. No structural difference : irrational beliefs, terror, local interest, mass who follow a frightened elite, and no real boss, not even the dictator himself who is a slave of the system like the queen of bees. My daughter love to look at the film Coraline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coraline_(film) at the end Coraline have to bet with the witch that she can find the eyes of the kids and her parents to be freed, or stay imprisoned have her eyes buttoned... The cats and the kids smartly explain her that the witch will accept the bet but will never respect it if she lose. The nay-believers of official science behave that way. Don't play poker with a witch, a russian mafioso, or a physics apparatchik. Vote and Market are not scientific instruments, but sociological instruments. in fact market is both an instruments, and a way to modify the system. LENR+ by allowing companies, scientists, engineers, economist, to make big bucks have allowed them to work for the hope of a reward, instead of pushing them to flee to avoid the terror of the scientific inquisition. Like the cat of Coraline, capitalist have no fear of witch, or physicists opinion. note that about improbable bets, taleb not only say that you should bet on improbable events, provided you know you will lose (but less than anticipated), but he also says that you should not use a fixed reward type of bet, but a real life unlimited reward, limited loss, option like investing is research, in startups... theatricalized bets are not so much realist , and the blackswan theory does not hold so well... 2013/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. Suppose you asked people to place bets as to whether airplanes exist. Out of the 1.6 billion people in the world alive on that day, at that moment, the only ones who had ANY KNOWLEDGE of that question were Wilbur and Orville Wright and the members of the Kitty Hawk coast guard who had helped them fly that morning. In all the world, there was not another soul who knew the facts or was qualified to address the question. The opinions of other people were worthless. Meaningless. All the money in the world placed in a bet would mean nothing. There was an undeveloped glass plate photograph showing the first flight: http://www.uscg.mil/history/gifs/Kitty_Hawk.jpg That photograph was proof. It overruled all opinions, all money, all textbooks, and the previous 200,000 years of human technology. A thermocouple reading from a cold fusion experiment in 1989 overrules every member of the human race, including every scientist. Once experiments are replicated at high signal to noise ratios, all bets are off. The issue is settled forever. There is no appeal, and it makes no difference how many people disagree, or how many fail to understand calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. The rules of science in such clear-cut cases are objective and the proof is as indisputable as that photograph. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
From Blaze: Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. As to I, to a certain extent. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. I agree. FYI, there have been some interesting Vort threads that have discussed the ramifications of our current economic engine (including Jed Rothwell) and how it is likely to be drastically affected as computerization, automation, and artificial intelligence continue their relentless drive to take over traditional jobs. The Vort Collective has debated on numerous occasions how in the near future we might go about distributing the wealth, aka currency, throughout the population in what is hopefully a fair and equitable way. What many futurists have been asking is: how will we go about earning our daily bread when most of the traditional jobs are being performed more efficiently and cheaply by robots and other forms of automation? The automation issue is, of course, an old issue, one that has been with us since the first machines were developed and introduced to replace mass labor well over a hundred years ago. Fortunately, what has always happened in the past is that new kinds of jobs... new kinds of services and product development were created that ended up replacing most of the traditional jobs that had been taken over by the scourge of automation. However, the transformation often seems to have been a bumpy process, one fraught with pesky political overtones. On this matter, I suspect we haven't seen nuth'n yet! Stay tuned. On a more positive note, many assume (as do I) that new kinds of jobs will continue to manifest through the mysterious laws known as emergent behavior. I believe all sorts of new kinds of jobs are likely come into being in order to fill new needs that don't yet exist. But are such assumptions right? I hope so, but I really don't know. Many futurists worry about this issue. A major concern many have voiced is the obvious fact that these days the pace of automation is increasing exponentially. Will our society and the mysterious and unpredictable behavioral laws of emergent behavior be capable of handling the changes and develop enough new jobs to absorb all who have been displaced? In the end some Vort members have speculated that the world's economic engine may end up having to simply give everyone an allowance of spendable currency to ensure that wealth can be evenly distributed throughout the population. Of course, how does one determine how much allowance everyone should get is likely to be a raunchy debate. For example, should there be a cap on how much any individual's allowance can be? And what about a minimum amount for the disadvantaged who are not capable of doing anything useful. In the meantime, I suspect there is a bright future for gambling. I suspect your chosen profession will not in danger of becoming obsolete. ;-) For more info read Lights in the Tunnel, as Mr. Rothwell has often suggested here. http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I would add that, this radical economic change is rushing in upon us. BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** I would add that, this radical economic change is rushing in upon us. BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse. 80% might be *under* employed. Citation, please.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: BusinessInsider reports that 80% of Americans are unemployed, dependent on welfare or living near the poverty line. Areas such as Spain may be far worse. 80% might be *under* employed. Citation, please. The wording is a little confusing. This means the total of unemployed *plus*underemployed, welfare, and employed but at the poverty level. 80% sounds a little high to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
We have seen such a change in our society with the industrial revolution, when less people were needed to feed the others... what happen ? they moved to factory... it was hard at the beginning, huge poverty, social struggle, marxism, paternalism, social security, and in the 60s it was working well and providing wealth and vacations, leisure and retirements... then productivity in western world stop growing, and worst of all, education is not matching needs... my vision of work is that the factory work will die. On one side you will have huge creative, scientific, strategic position with a minority of not only educated but exceptionally smart workers... There will be also physically exceptional workers, like artist, craftsmen, sportsmen, emergency operators. The robots , the computers, will do all that need moderate dexterity, moderate intelligence, moderate understanding... They will replace the administrative capacities of office workers, the factory workers, most of the builders... even the cleaning of houses, the security checking, the cops, the guardians, the nurses, will be replaced for their less human part of the job. a class of job that I see being developed, but with huge problem of competence, if the one where humanity is the key competence. Where kindness, politeness, empathy, hearing and understanding, daily imagination is the only competence required. I see in France that it is the huge problem, and if you compare to developing countries you see a huge lack of competence. there is a problem in education here about human factors, empathic education. We learn critic, manipulation, analysis, to deven our right or attack others, to order, manage but not to be kind, to accept critics, insults, to submit to others. When you have to help citizen to fill a form (on a computer), when you help a client to choose his drink, when you help an elderly nasty woman to eat and wash, human competences are more important than technical knowledge. a last mass of job will be new jobs, and maybe it is the one who are missing , it is probably linked to leisure, tourism, and other pleasant and useless activities. they are developing, but the economic crisis, linked to energy price and unemployment, does not allow those job to exist. The problem is not that there is no job, because it would mean vacation (not unemployment), it is that some people have needs that some others cannot fulfill. We often focus on the top genius workers, and it is not false. Xavier Niel and many others remind us that very few people are enough to inspire the permanence revolution of innovations, but that our mass education is cutting the heads that are above average... We are producing standardized high-executive, but not the crazy Steve Jobs, the Edison, the Tesla, the Columbus... This idea is pushed also by Taleb. I add to that that for the rest of the population, we still propose them competence for a middle level work which is taken by computers and robots. And worst of all we give them dream and rigidity which make them unable to adapt to the real new jobs, who are hard, to manage other humans in distress. For the leisure/tourism works it may put oil in the system, with people happy to replace robots and work hard for what they love... like it happens today for many high-level works. but there will be need of courageous people to interact with humans in distress. Normally this kind of jobs should be well paid in the future, like the job of football players or engineers. The problem is that our sociological rigidity prevent to pay those hard work at their real price (because they are linked to lower education, and to people having no other choice). finally I repeat it, increase of productivity does not mean unemployment. What cause unemployment is mismatched competence. the problem of unemployment is not work, it is wages, thus buying capacity, and buying capacity is the result of work multiplied by productivity. Their can be a distribution (not of money, but of goods and services, forget wealth, look at life style), but normally some social violence can force changes. Problem is when there is few to share, because many people cannot participate (enough) to produce. 2013/7/29 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net From Blaze: ** ** Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. ** ** As to I, to a certain extent. ** ** Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. ** ** I agree. ** ** FYI, there have been some interesting Vort threads that have discussed the ramifications of our current economic engine (including Jed Rothwell) and how it is likely to be drastically affected as computerization, automation, and artificial intelligence continue their relentless
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Re: Bets Nicely put, Steven. RIP. ken On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, there is market inefficiency due to risk aversion. Black swans exist. D2 -- From: orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:09:49 -0500 From Blaze: ... In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Buckets of money. you say. It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to make buckets of money betting on improbable events. (On a related note, one of my mutual funds is a contra fund. It often seems to do better than the average fund.) On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for immediate trading, and finally not having timely data in which to make proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It’s not for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new newbie traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I then asked myself, what if I *had* become successful? What would I have then been able to put my grave stone? *STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON* 1952 - 2031 HIs contribution to the world was that he made a lot of money extracting it from the wallets of others who were also trying to make a lot of money attempting to do the same thing to him. * * * RIP Just as in the fine art of betting, commodity trading works by profiting from the losses of others. Inculcating this realization did not set well with me. In a sense I actually became relieved of the fact that I had lost money. It meant that I had not profited from the financial losses of others. I realize this was a rationalization on my part. Nevertheless, my own losses left me with a clearer conscience. Based on my own memories I will grant you that it probably IS a rush to realize how smart one must be in order to take money (willing so) from others, and to be able to do it in a perfectly legal way! The fact is that a capitalistic economy needs transactional activity of this sort in order for the markets to remain dynamic and liquid. So... in a sense, THATS, the service traders and betters are contributing to the system. Hey! It's just money. ...hopefully, YOUR, money, and not mine. Nothing personal! For some inexplicable reason, I don’t think I personally would feel comfortable advertising the acquisition of such a skill set on my gravestone. But by all means, have fun with your buckets of money. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. This objective measurement is particularly useful for trying to determine a reasonable probability of LENR existing. Why? Because my motivations are perfectly aligned .. I want it to be true, because it'd be a great investment opportunity, but I have to make sure it's true (I must be skeptical) because if it isn't true I will lose out. Who else has such clearly aligned motivations? Get a good group of us, middle our estimates appropriately (perhaps weighted by track record), and our output will be a useful indicator of the likelihood that this is all true. (The problem with Intrade was it wasn't weighted by track record and was open to manipulation by those with more money and desire to see an outcome than need for profit.) Why is this useful? Because it helps planners have some reasonable indication of how to make decisions on policy and planning for the future. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM, ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Re: Bets Nicely put, Steven. RIP. ken On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, there is market inefficiency due to risk aversion. Black swans exist. D2 From: orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:09:49 -0500 From Blaze: ... In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Buckets of money. you say. It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to make buckets of money betting on improbable events. (On a related note, one of my mutual funds is a contra fund. It often seems to do better than the average fund.) On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for immediate trading, and finally not having timely data in which to make proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It’s not for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new newbie traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I then asked myself, what if I had become successful? What would I have then been able to put my grave stone? STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON 1952 - 2031 HIs contribution to the world was that he made a lot of money extracting it from the wallets of others who were also trying to make a lot of money attempting to do the same thing to him. * * * RIP
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. This objective measurement is particularly useful for trying to determine a reasonable probability of LENR existing. No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? At present, most physicists and other people know nothing about cold fusion. They have not read any papers and they have no idea what is claimed, or what instruments are used. Their opinions are worth nothing. Less than nothing, because they are biased by the nonsense published in the mass media and Wikipedia. I am in favor of capitalism. Money is good for many purposes. But it is utterly useless for this purpose. The only way you make an objective measurement of a scientific claim is by using the scientific method. You have to look at the instruments, the data, and you have to apply the textbook laws of physics and chemistry. There are no other methods, and no shortcuts. Applying the rules of the marketplace to this question is absurd, like trying to referee a tennis game using a C++ language tutorial, or the score of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Different areas of knowledge and life have different sets of rules. You cannot arbitrarily apply one to another. The rules of the marketplace, and the mechanisms of it, do not apply to things like science, art, literature or love. If you cannot decide whether you love someone and should marry, asking other people to judge your emotions or to bet on them would be futile. Money is a good metric for economics. But not all of life is about economics. Some things have nothing remotely to do with it. Science is one of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I wrote: No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. Suppose you asked people to place bets as to whether airplanes exist. Out of the 1.6 billion people in the world alive on that day, at that moment, the only ones who had ANY KNOWLEDGE of that question were Wilbur and Orville Wright and the members of the Kitty Hawk coast guard who had helped them fly that morning. In all the world, there was not another soul who knew the facts or was qualified to address the question. The opinions of other people were worthless. Meaningless. All the money in the world placed in a bet would mean nothing. There was an undeveloped glass plate photograph showing the first flight: http://www.uscg.mil/history/gifs/Kitty_Hawk.jpg That photograph was proof. It overruled all opinions, all money, all textbooks, and the previous 200,000 years of human technology. A thermocouple reading from a cold fusion experiment in 1989 overrules every member of the human race, including every scientist. Once experiments are replicated at high signal to noise ratios, all bets are off. The issue is settled forever. There is no appeal, and it makes no difference how many people disagree, or how many fail to understand calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. The rules of science in such clear-cut cases are objective and the proof is as indisputable as that photograph. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? And, btw if that's the analogy, are you saying we haven't learned to do LENR+ yet? That we are at the equivalent of December 17, 1903? I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier)
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
(Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier) at should be restated as disrupt the Higgs superconductivity. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:36 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? And, btw if that's the analogy, are you saying we haven't learned to do LENR+ yet? That we are at the equivalent of December 17, 1903? I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier)
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. Prediction markets might be a useful way to predict whether the public will believe that a breakthrough exists, or whether it will continue denying the facts. I do not know if these markets are good for that purpose. I do not know enough about them. I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. . . . You cannot predict that. You can only judge it by a careful evaluation of the Levi report and by looking at others who have produced Ni-H cold fusion. Predicting is the wrong word in any case. A prediction applies to the future. Rossi's experiments have already happened. You are trying to determine whether they proved what he claims. To do that, you must use the tools of science and engineering, not the tools of a prediction market. Or, you might be trying to determine whether other people will believe him at a given date in the future. That is an entirely different matter. People did not believe the Wrights until 1908, but obviously they did actually fly on many occasions between 1903 and 1908. People's beliefs have absolutely no bearing what is true. Beliefs cannot affect reality. It works both ways. If you were betting on the outcome of an election, you would not try to use the laws of thermodynamics, or a manual on calorimetry. You might use a prediction market though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
You cannot predict that. You can.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot predict that. You can. GLENDOWER I can call spirits from the vasty deep. HOTSPUR Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? (The other problem is that you seem to be trying to predict something that has already occurred, but perhaps I misunderstand.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
The other problem is that you seem to be trying to predict something that has already occurred, Schrodinger's eCat!
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I imagine that yo know Nassim Nicholas Taleb vision. what you do is matching his advices . the highly improbable is much undesrestimated, even if still improbable. 2013/7/27 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them).
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
From Blaze: ... In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Buckets of money. you say. It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to make buckets of money betting on improbable events. (On a related note, one of my mutual funds is a contra fund. It often seems to do better than the average fund.) On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for immediate trading, and finally not having timely data in which to make proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It's not for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new newbie traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I then asked myself, what if I had become successful? What would I have then been able to put my grave stone? STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON 1952 - 2031 HIs contribution to the world was that he made a lot of money extracting it from the wallets of others who were also trying to make a lot of money attempting to do the same thing to him. * * * RIP Just as in the fine art of betting, commodity trading works by profiting from the losses of others. Inculcating this realization did not set well with me. In a sense I actually became relieved of the fact that I had lost money. It meant that I had not profited from the financial losses of others. I realize this was a rationalization on my part. Nevertheless, my own losses left me with a clearer conscience. Based on my own memories I will grant you that it probably IS a rush to realize how smart one must be in order to take money (willing so) from others, and to be able to do it in a perfectly legal way! The fact is that a capitalistic economy needs transactional activity of this sort in order for the markets to remain dynamic and liquid. So... in a sense, THATS, the service traders and betters are contributing to the system. Hey! It's just money. ...hopefully, YOUR, money, and not mine. Nothing personal! For some inexplicable reason, I don't think I personally would feel comfortable advertising the acquisition of such a skill set on my gravestone. But by all means, have fun with your buckets of money. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
yes, there is market inefficiency due to risk aversion. Black swans exist. D2 From: orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:09:49 -0500 From Blaze: ... In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Buckets of money. you say. It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to make buckets of money betting on improbable events. (On a related note, one of my mutual funds is a contra fund. It often seems to do better than the average fund.) On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for immediate trading, and finally not having timely data in which to make proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It’s not for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new newbie traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I then asked myself, what if I had become successful? What would I have then been able to put my grave stone? STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON1952 - 2031 HIs contribution to the world was thathe made a lot of money extracting it from the wallets of otherswho were also trying to make a lot of moneyattempting to do the same thing to him.* * *RIP Just as in the fine art of betting, commodity trading works by profiting from the losses of others. Inculcating this realization did not set well with me. In a sense I actually became relieved of the fact that I had lost money. It meant that I had not profited from the financial losses of others. I realize this was a rationalization on my part. Nevertheless, my own losses left me with a clearer conscience. Based on my own memories I will grant you that it probably IS a rush to realize how smart one must be in order to take money (willing so) from others, and to be able to do it in a perfectly legal way! The fact is that a capitalistic economy needs transactional activity of this sort in order for the markets to remain dynamic and liquid. So... in a sense, THATS, the service traders and betters are contributing to the system. Hey! It's just money. ...hopefully, YOUR, money, and not mine. Nothing personal! For some inexplicable reason, I don’t think I personally would feel comfortable advertising the acquisition of such a skill set on my gravestone. But by all means, have fun with your buckets of money. Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Very very exciting. Hopefully they will publish a test protocol for review / scrutiny well beforehand.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
DGT stole a page from Rossi's book on the Ni-H scientific side, now they're stealing a page from his book on how to conduct business and promise undisclosed future promises of independent university testing. I think they were working with Rossi and decided for themselves that the guy was too mercurial and if a clown like him could find the secret, so could they. Like someone sidling up to the Wright Brothers like Selfridge (the first person to die in a Wright Brothers accident) and steal the IP. That same approach was tried by no less an aeronautical luminary than Langley when he finally realized how far behind he was in his research. http://books.google.com/books?id=XKaqfYxlsW8Cpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=%22wright+brothers%22+++%22octave+chanute%22+smithsonian+langley+cheekysource=blots=uR3Rqkkfb9sig=Sffd3uvfLAlm28sdKgke1cA-g-0hl=ensa=Xei=ATDzUYC_HOffiAKCr4HgDAved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepageq=%22wright%20brothers%22%20%20%20%22octave%20chanute%22%20smithsonian%20langley%20cheekyf=false On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:00 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From MFMP's facebook page. Harry --- We are very sorry for the hiatus in our communications - we have been working in...credibly intensely to move this field forward on several fronts - all we can say is that we think ICCF-18 was a watershed for this emerging science with excellent new discoveries and significant new evidence of excess heat from Takahashi and Defkalion (DGT) as well as strong new science related to LENR revealed by Carpintieri (piezo/cold fission) and Vysotski (creation of collimated laser light from metal induced by cavitation shockwaves). It was also a triumph for the Live Open Science approach that the MFMP is pioneering with the help of its followers. So many attendees offered equipment, IP and technology to our effort, frankly it will take us weeks to come to terms with. A revolution is coming and you are at the head of the field. We must reserve special congratulations to DGT for their Live Open Scientific demonstration which was engaging and inspiring - would would like to see them and others taking this approach more frequently in the future. We have been told by a trusted source, whom we can not disclose, that there will be an independent report of DGT Hyperion technology published at some point. It is understood that some respected university professors have been involved. We certainly hope this is true and that we can have some detailed, rigorous analysis to support the promising live demonstrations of recent days. By: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Projecthttps://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject?ref=stream
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing list to hear from some real experts in the field which is how he wound up here. i agree his tune has changed incredibly from the beginning which is an awesome thing but still waiting for him to admit that there is a clear and direct line from Rossi to DGT and Rossi deserves to be recognized for that despite his character flaws. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: DGT stole a page from Rossi's book on the Ni-H scientific side, now they're stealing a page from his book on how to conduct business and promise undisclosed future promises of independent university testing. I think they were working with Rossi and decided for themselves that the guy was too mercurial and if a clown like him could find the secret, so could they. Like someone sidling up to the Wright Brothers like Selfridge (the first person to die in a Wright Brothers accident) and steal the IP. That same approach was tried by no less an aeronautical luminary than Langley when he finally realized how far behind he was in his research. http://books.google.com/books?id=XKaqfYxlsW8Cpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=%22wright+brothers%22+++%22octave+chanute%22+smithsonian+langley+cheekysource=blots=uR3Rqkkfb9sig=Sffd3uvfLAlm28sdKgke1cA-g-0hl=ensa=Xei=ATDzUYC_HOffiAKCr4HgDAved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepageq=%22wright%20brothers%22%20%20%20%22octave%20chanute%22%20smithsonian%20langley%20cheekyf=false On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:00 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From MFMP's facebook page. Harry --- We are very sorry for the hiatus in our communications - we have been working in...credibly intensely to move this field forward on several fronts - all we can say is that we think ICCF-18 was a watershed for this emerging science with excellent new discoveries and significant new evidence of excess heat from Takahashi and Defkalion (DGT) as well as strong new science related to LENR revealed by Carpintieri (piezo/cold fission) and Vysotski (creation of collimated laser light from metal induced by cavitation shockwaves). It was also a triumph for the Live Open Science approach that the MFMP is pioneering with the help of its followers. So many attendees offered equipment, IP and technology to our effort, frankly it will take us weeks to come to terms with. A revolution is coming and you are at the head of the field. We must reserve special congratulations to DGT for their Live Open Scientific demonstration which was engaging and inspiring - would would like to see them and others taking this approach more frequently in the future. We have been told by a trusted source, whom we can not disclose, that there will be an independent report of DGT Hyperion technology published at some point. It is understood that some respected university professors have been involved. We certainly hope this is true and that we can have some detailed, rigorous analysis to support the promising live demonstrations of recent days. By: Martin Fleischmann Memorial Projecthttps://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject?ref=stream
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing Joe, that's not me. I thought you were referring to something else when you said above top secret forums. I didn't actually realize there was a website called that. :) I participate in some other forums which are kept pretty close. I thought you were referring to those. If you're particularly desperate to find out who I am, I'm sure you could search all over the web and google stalk me. It's not very exciting though, and I question the wisdom of getting obsessed with personalities like that who are bit players in all this. In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Early on, they both were deemed highly improbable. (A black man? President? Now of course, it's all so obvious). I traded all manner of diverse opportunities, from movie contracts, to politics, to alien life being discovered. I specialized in the improbable bet. I wish I traded Cold Fusion like Kevin did, but hey, can't be everywhere. Time and time again though, it always came down to doing your research and doing on the ground / local investigations and not letting your prejudices get in the way. Finding something which the establishment hated or there was a public psychological bias against, worked well to. I generally use basic bayesian inference with subjective inputs (where I'm relatively confident) to determine an accurate probability for bets that need to be made and alter the weight of my investments as *any* new evidence (always on a bayesian basis, unless I'm very familiar with it) comes to light. Kevin, my good buddy, knows what I'm talking about. No idea if he was as successful as I was. His publicly announced Romney bets in '12 makes me wonder. My hopes are to do this again with LENR. I'm slowly ramping up put options on some already over priced alt energy contracts which I feel would be uneconomical if Rossi/DGT play out. I haven't got too crazy yet as I'm not entirely confident that they will play out - like I said, still willing to bet even odds that they are frauds. Now that I shared all that noise, I'll share one more tidbit of information with a bit of signal: George Neumann who gave a talk at the eCat Conf in Zurich (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Event:2012:E-Cat_Conference_in_Zurich ) has dropped the eCat from his website: http://www.nobletec.de/index.php/die-technologien/87-technologie It's still in Google Cache if you want to look: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vsoxRucqfMUJ:www.nobletec.de/index.php/die-technologien/79-technologie/e-cat/86-10-kw-home-unit+cd=1hl=enct=clnkgl=ca I wonder why. I've emailed him to ask.
