I do not understand why the heading keeps going out of synch. It must be the apostrophe.
Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > ahaha, ok buddy. Unfortunately your brilliant analysis falls to the next > sentence: "I just want to see it happen" > Ahhaha yourself. Again, you seem to have a grade-school appreciation of business strategy. Let me put it this way. Imagine you are Al Shugart, it is 1980, and you have maybe 10% of the IP need for a personal computer. That is to say, you have good hard disks. You yourself cannot make a personal computer, because you do have the full range of skills or the capital. But it is very much in your interest to see Apple and IBM make them. You just want to see that happen. Even though IBM will make a lot more money from this than Shugart himself makes, it is still in his interest. It is reasonable to assume that even if someone else beats Darden to the market, Darden will have some IP that can enhance the technology and bring him a lot of profit. Even if someone else gets a larger share. Furthermore, Darden is not just a capitalist. He is also a human being here on earth, with a family and friends, and a community. He knows that we face energy shortages, catastrophic global warming and many other problems that cold fusion will solve. He is not looking at this only in terms of his own narrow interests, but also in terms of what it will mean for his future, and his children's future, and everyone's future. So am I. I have sacrificed a great deal of money and effort for cold fusion, with no likelihood of getting any of it back. This is philanthropic. It is altruistic. People often do things for the greater benefit of society. For example, in WWII, 292,000 Americans sacrificed their lives for the benefit of the nation, and also to benefit Europeans and ultimately Germans and Japanese people. I suppose you will say, "hahaha, they were suckers" or "no, they did not want to sacrifice anything; they were forced into it." You apparently believe that no one does anything for any reason other than greed or personal benefit -- or at least, no capitalist does. You are probably young. I suppose you do not know what it felt like in 1950s and 60s, when the spirit of public service was still strong, and nearly every middle aged man had willingly stepped up even at the risk of his life, for the greater good. Money meant much less back then. It still means less to those of us who experienced that, even second-hand. When my grandfather's generation sent their sons to war, I assure you they would have gladly spent every dollar they had if only it could ensure the safe return of their children. Money meant absolutely nothing in that context. The war cost fantastic sums, and taxes were raised to 90%, but no one complained. As one of top planners put it: we figured people wanted the husbands and sons to come back alive way more than they wanted to save money and fight the war on the cheap. Darden, and I, both know that if the energy crisis is not solved, and severe global warming ensues, money will eventually be worth nothing. Wealth will mean nothing. People rich and poor will suffer, and civilization itself may be set back or destroyed. That is way more important than near term profit. I know -- I know -- you don't believe it. You don't think we actually feel that way. Because you have the vision & experience of a self-centered second grader. Us grownups have an sense or responsibility, and we do things for our children, not just for ourselves. - Jed
