Yes, Jeff only the politician can handle it. BS the reality is that we let them. We accept that we have less and less input on the over all financial operations. I believe that your priority list is accurate, or close enough. Are you happy with that? I am not. I have several reasons in descending order: 1. It is centralizing the decision making (the Sovjetunion tried between 1917 and 1989 - did not work so well). 2. The military (industrial complex) does very little for people in general seen away from those who have their income from that part of society. It ought to be well down played. 3. It makes the freedom (academic and personal in general) less. 4. It limits whom can be funded by bureaucratic (very dull) tools. You are saying this is how it was, this is how it is, therefore it should remain the same. I say it is time to change gear and undo some of the old rules. That I understand is consensus in Vortex that it might take modification of established rules to make LENR a reality. I think the same goes for our society in general and for management principal especially.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > The point I am getting at here is that the early stages of basic research > into things like cold fusion are seldom profitable. Corporations seldom do > basic research for this reason. There was a time when AT&T supported a lot > of fundamental research at Bell Labs, and IBM used to do a lot of > fundamental research, but this seldom paid off. Of course the transistor > was a huge exception, and I am sure you can think of others. However, most > devices such as the laser were not profitable at first. There is little > chance that anyone will make a profit from cold fusion research as it is > now conducted. One of the reasons is that "a force of nature" cannot be > patented. > > So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion > research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate > profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be > outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. > > Private individuals are also ruled out. There is little chance that you > can contribute unless you happen to be a multimillionaire. You will not > have the money to conduct useful experiments in something like cold fusion. > It requires expensive instruments and safe lab space. > > That leaves only government labs, national labs, and university labs, > which do not have to show a profit. Their main goals, in descending order, > are: > > 1. To get U.S. government research funding. > 2. To contribute to weapons development. > 3. To establish scientific priority. > 4. To discover new scientific knowledge. > > Goals 1 and 2 far outweigh the others. If anything such as cold fusion > threatens #1 it will be ruthlessly suppressed, even if it would contribute > to new scientific knowledge. > > You cannot blame people for making research funding the number one > priority. They have to make a living after all. Most scientists do not have > lavish lifestyles. > > Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous > weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support > by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's > fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the > purpose of most of the R&D money spent by the U.S. government. > > - Jed > >
