Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:55 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:02 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> <snip> You're missing the point. Most
"new" engineering technologies are bells and whistles variants
designed to make money and not to help society. Capitalism does
not produce important new technologies, if it can possibly avoid
it.
It used to. Does that mean they're all done, or does it mean we've
forgotten how?
--
Les Cargill
Capitalism never produced important new technologies. Why do you
think wars have been so critical in developing technology? Because
the government takes over to achieve practical objectives, and
greedy businessmen aren't just trying to make a buck. There's no
money in important new technologies. They're too easy to steal. The patents are too easy to modify. They cost too
much money to
develop.

Finance Media Propaganda: "Why you're not rich!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105934/10-Reasons-You're-Not-Rich

"Oh, you silly billy! It's all you're fault you're not a
millionaire! Millionaires are all wonderful people who are the true
paragons of society. If you're not a millionaire, you have no one to
blame but yourself. You are a bad person. You should be in prison.
You should be in jail. Or at the very least, you should starve and
have no health care. Because it's all your fault!"



I know, I know.... it's the World Wide Rasslin' equivalent of
finance talk...

Even more ... bizarre... is the confluence of Christianity
and Capitalism we see, self-help "Gawd wants you to be rich"
proponed by those who have forgotten the size of an eye
of a needle*....

*and that story may be mistranslated or metaphoric - the Eye
of a Needle is alleged to be a gate somewhere in the Middle
East around Jerusalem or something...

"Dude, you like money *too*?!? We should hang out sometime." -
Frito, "Idiocracy"....


Maybe, millionaires are just thieves, and the reason people are poor
is that society rewards greed instead of merit and true productivity?

We make The System. We all have our Rich and Famous fantasy. If
there is a problem, it is that there's not much feedback from Reality
that laziness or stupidity might be Sinful in the Eyes of Nature - we
cannot tell the difference between faux productivity and
the real deal.

Meanwhile, all we really need appears as if by magic. This is an
artifact of the monstrous leverage in production we have - if
2% produce all our raw food stocks, the other 98% can be forgiven
for seeing that as magical.

You don't have to do anything useful to make money. You can just
steal, intimidate and manipulate.



Sure. All you have to do then is accept as given that you're
useless, or lie to yourself about it. I have been there when this
collapses in on people. It's not pretty.

My opinion? The species has been pushing a rock up a hill forever. We might have reached a plateau.

So rock-pushing isn't quite the thing it used to be....

On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:55 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:02 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> <snip> You're missing the point. Most
"new" engineering technologies are bells and whistles variants
designed to make money and not to help society. Capitalism does
not produce important new technologies, if it can possibly avoid
it.
It used to. Does that mean they're all done, or does it mean we've
forgotten how?
--
Les Cargill
Capitalism never produced important new technologies. Why do you
think wars have been so critical in developing technology? Because
the government takes over to achieve practical objectives, and
greedy businessmen aren't just trying to make a buck. There's no
money in important new technologies. They're too easy to steal.
The patents are too easy to modify. They cost too much money to
develop.

Finance Media Propaganda: "Why you're not rich!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105934/10-Reasons-...

"Oh, you silly billy! It's all you're fault you're not a
millionaire! Millionaires are all wonderful people who are the true
paragons of society. If you're not a millionaire, you have no one to
blame but yourself. You are a bad person. You should be in prison.
You should be in jail. Or at the very least, you should starve and
have no health care. Because it's all your fault!"

I know, I know.... it's the World Wide Rasslin' equivalent of
finance talk...

Even more ... bizarre... is the confluence of Christianity
and Capitalism we see, self-help "Gawd wants you to be rich"
proponed by those who have forgotten the size of an eye
of a needle*....

*and that story may be mistranslated or metaphoric - the Eye
of a Needle is alleged to be a gate somewhere in the Middle
East around Jerusalem or something...

"Dude, you like money *too*?!? We should hang out sometime." -
Frito, "Idiocracy"....

Maybe, millionaires are just thieves, and the reason people are poor
is that society rewards greed instead of merit and true
productivity?

We make The System. We all have our Rich and Famous fantasy. If
there is a problem, it is that there's not much feedback from Reality
that laziness or stupidity might be Sinful in the Eyes of Nature - we
cannot tell the difference between faux productivity and
the real deal.

Meanwhile, all we really need appears as if by magic. This is an
artifact of the monstrous leverage in production we have - if
2% produce all our raw food stocks, the other 98% can be forgiven
for seeing that as magical.

You don't have to do anything useful to make money. You can just
steal, intimidate and manipulate.

Sure. All you have to do then is accept as given that you're
useless, or lie to yourself about it. I have been there when this
collapses in on people. It's not pretty.

My opinion? The species has been pushing a rock up a hill
forever. We might have reached a plateau. So rock-pushing
isn't quite the thing it used to be....

Don't worry Les. Bin Laden will save us. Remember: anarchists are the midwives of Communism.

And nothing scares Capitalists into being socially responsible better than Communists.

On Oct 11, 3:14 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:55 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:02 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net"
zzbun...@netscape.net> <snip> You're missing the point. Most
"new" engineering technologies are bells and whistles variants
designed to make money and not to help society. Capitalism does
not produce important new technologies, if it can possibly
avoid it.
It used to. Does that mean they're all done, or does it mean
we've forgotten how?
--
Les Cargill
Capitalism never produced important new technologies. Why do you
think wars have been so critical in developing technology?
Because the government takes over to achieve practical
objectives, and greedy businessmen aren't just trying to make a
buck. There's no money in important new technologies. They're
too easy to steal. The patents are too easy to modify. They cost
too much money to develop.

Finance Media Propaganda: "Why you're not rich!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105934/10-Reasons-...

"Oh, you silly billy! It's all you're fault you're not a
millionaire! Millionaires are all wonderful people who are the
true paragons of society. If you're not a millionaire, you have
no one to blame but yourself. You are a bad person. You should be
in prison. You should be in jail. Or at the very least, you
should starve and have no health care. Because it's all your
fault!"

I know, I know.... it's the World Wide Rasslin' equivalent of
finance talk...

Even more ... bizarre... is the confluence of Christianity
and Capitalism we see, self-help "Gawd wants you to be rich"
proponed by those who have forgotten the size of an eye
of a needle*....

*and that story may be mistranslated or metaphoric - the Eye
of a Needle is alleged to be a gate somewhere in the Middle
East around Jerusalem or something...

"Dude, you like money *too*?!? We should hang out sometime." -
Frito, "Idiocracy"....

Maybe, millionaires are just thieves, and the reason people are
poor is that society rewards greed instead of merit and true
productivity?

We make The System. We all have our Rich and Famous fantasy. If
there is a problem, it is that there's not much feedback from
Reality that laziness or stupidity might be Sinful in the Eyes of
Nature - we cannot tell the difference between faux productivity
and
the real deal.

Meanwhile, all we really need appears as if by magic. This is an
artifact of the monstrous leverage in production we have - if
2% produce all our raw food stocks, the other 98% can be forgiven
for seeing that as magical.

You don't have to do anything useful to make money. You can just
steal, intimidate and manipulate.

Sure. All you have to do then is accept as given that you're
useless, or lie to yourself about it. I have been there when this
collapses in on people. It's not pretty.

My opinion? The species has been pushing a rock up a hill
forever. We might have reached a plateau. So rock-pushing
isn't quite the thing it used to be....
Don't worry Les. Bin Laden will save us. Remember: anarchists are
the midwives of Communism.

bin Laden is nothing like an anarchist.

And nothing scares Capitalists into being socially responsible better than Communists.

Gets sillier by the minute.

Are you really saying Capitalists aren't scared of Communists, Rod?

Really?

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:03:34 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:50:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison
didn't understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science
of electricity."

no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv
were first invented his contribution would have been to
monopolize the methods of transmission
Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.

no, the FCC controls the standards:

.. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.

so?  the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
It was developed 100% by people working for Sarnoff. It might be the
single
biggest leap in electronics transmission of its time. It packed
amazing amounts of data into a small space, well ahead of even the
electronics to support it.

there's no comparison between NTSC & anything microsoft does.

There was a non-technical component to the distribution of NTSC that is
the same. Sarnoff and Gates are comparable in that regard.

do tell.

RCA was accused widely of monopolism in radio.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332

as well they should have:

"RCA and its allies controlled the patents for radio, and had a virtual
monopoly ***until the alliance was declared to violate antitrust laws***
in 1932."

that article doesn't even mention NTSC. with regard to monopoly, it's
about media mergers.

 the specs
for NTSC are publicly available for all to use, the exact opposite is
the case for microsoft formats.  the NTSC standard is not patent
encumbered by a highly predatory monopoly that coerces & intimidates to
create fear to prevent others from using the standards.  these are
complete opposite ends of the spectrum, openness for the benefit of all
vs. closed for the benefit of one at the expense of all.

That's all 100% true - but then again, Windows apps don't have to
interoperate at that level to be useful. And I see this as not so much
arrogance as laziness. It's geek egocentrism - everybody wants to author
a protocol...

ok, let's just ignore microsoft's endless track record of highly
predatory behavior (often in violation of antitrust law) and just call it
"geek egocentrism".

Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The vertical hold
knob was there because of thermal oscillator drift before there were
PLLs. You had to manually tune the oscillator from a knob on the front
of the set. We used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames
of the picture would roll vertically until you stopped it with the
knob.

that has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.

It has to do with the excellence of the NTSC standard.

you seem quite enamored of this NTSC, what is your connection to it?

The standard was well in advance of *component level support*. And a
million companies bloomed from it.

you want to ascribe to microsoft all the good qualities that come from
openness of standards as was the case for the evolution of tv, yet
microsoft does the exact opposite of those things.  as i said earlier,
microsoft is but a huge roadblock standing in the way of the real
computer revolution because everything they do in pursuit of their own
self-interest is the exact opposite of what's good for everyone else.

If they are a roadblock, go around them. I'm saying that if they *can*
be not-open, and the market rewards that, then we have to question the
perceived utility of openness in that context.

ok, let's just disregard the very real barriers that the highly predatory
monopoly creates (often in violation of antitrust law) for users that
prevent them from switching to an alternate platform and pretend that
consumers are "rewarding" them with their business despite the fact that
they think microsoft products are crap.

and there's no
monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
standard.
Sure there is. You just don't see it because it's not explicit.

you don't see it because it's not there.  there was no proprietary
monopoly on the NTSC standard.

If TV had been of 100 different standards, there would have been no TV.
Software can be of an almost infinite array of standards, and still
remain useful.

the issue is that of compatibility and hundreds of proprietary standards
that don't work on any but the microsoft platform is only "useful" for
maintaining a highly predatory monopoly that considers continually
violating antitrust law as a normal course of business.

What was
RCA worth in 1960? Who was the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.

whatever success RCA had was not the result of a monopoly on the NTSC
standard because there never was one.

it was a near-monopoly. And RCA had monopolistic tendencies in radio:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332

addressed above.  to find, search back for: "article doesn't even mention
NTSC"

NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it's dying in February. But it was 100%
developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a very long time for others
to catch up to RCA.

where are the equivalent masterpieces of publicly available, patent
unencumbered standards for the computer?

http://www.ietf.org/

http://www.ieee.org/web/education/802_Workshop/index.xml

i was referring to the most commonly used proprietary formats which
microsoft uses to make sure that users of other platforms receive a poor
experience when accessing a significant number of popular web sites that
are locked into microsoft-only formats.  these users then claim that
these other platforms are "hard to use" which is the result of microsoft
using its monopoly leverage (often in violation of antitrust law) to lock
users out.

as an example, here is what the wonderful microsoft monopoly did to help
bring olympic video coverage to as wide an audience as possible (they
locked you out unless you use microsoft windows):

"Video is currently supported on the following browsers:
    * Internet Explorer 6, 7 for Windows
      (Vista, XP SP2 or greater and 2003)
    * Firefox 1.5, 2, 3 for Windows
      (Vista, XP SP2 or greater"

of course, for anyone that knows a bit of tech, the lock-out is about as
effective as is microsoft system security (like a latch on a straw hut).  
however, this in conjunction with similar setups on other popular
websites tends to dissuade newbies from using alternate (non-ms) systems
which is, of course, microsoft's intent (and nobody is ever going to buy
the bs silverlight excuse either).





it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as opposed to
one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a standard
that everyone uses.

*All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.

Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The name
"Cisco" will figure quite prominently.

the issue is openness of standards, not who develops them.
monopolizing standards for commodities used by all is nothing but a
roadblock to progress and benefits no one (except of course the
monopoly at the expense of everyone else).

Lock-in doesn't scare customers. They either don't care or don't
understand. I lean towards "don't care" - people are just not interested
in what makes it tick.

so because a prisoner doesn't escape it means they "don't care" about
lock-in?  do you think not having a viable choice might have something to
do with it?  i don't know what sheltered corner of the internet you've
restricted yourself to but there's an endless amount of animosity
regarding microsoft lock-in readily available from any web browser.



"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940
by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
resolve the conflicts that arose between companies over the
introduction of a nationwide analog television system in the United
States. In March 1941, the committee issued a technical standard
for black-and-white television that built upon a 1936
recommendation made by the Radio Manufacturers Association (RMA).
...
In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize
color television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is
now called simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined
as RS-170a). The updated standard retained full backwards
compatibility ("compatible color") with older black-and-white
television sets. Color information was added to the black-and-white
image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 MHz
(approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. In order to minimize
interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound carrier,
the addition of the color subcarrier also required a slight
reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001
(very close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the line
frequency from 15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

That's nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at
all?

My statement stands.

Weakly, if at all.

you just replied

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Confidence Is Leaving the Fiat Money System

Daily Article by Thorsten Polleit | Posted on 10/10/2008

Were it not for ever-greater increases in central-bank money and the market expectation that governments are about to
make taxpayers shoulder commercial banks' huge losses, the fiat money systems would presumably collapse right away.

International interbank short-term lending rates say it all:

the latest drastic increases in yield spreads between money-market rates
and official central-bank rates are indicative of the growing reluctance among banks to extend loans to each other,
for fear that borrowers could default on their payment obligations (see graph below).

Under today's fiat-money regime, banks, under governments' auspices,
increase the money stock "out of thin air" whenever they extend loans.

The money supply is built on credit, which, in turn, hinges on
peoples' confidence in banks and banks' confidence in their
borrowers' ability and willingness to service their debt.

As confidence leaves the system, banks refrain from extending loans and demand repayment of outstanding loans, and the
money stock contracts. Economies that have for decades been fuelled by ever-higher doses of credit and money fall into
depression - that is, declining production, employment, and prices.

Where the Losses Come From

To better understand the drop in confidence in the paper-money
system, one should take a look at the issue of banks' accounting
losses and payment losses. Assume, for instance, a bank buys a
corporate bond for, say, US$100 and records it in its balance sheet.

If the bond price declines to, say, US$50 (due to rising market
yields), the bank would have to make a write-down. The resulting
US$50 loss would, via the profit-and-loss account, reduce the bank's
recorded equity capital.
As long as the issuer of the bond continues to service his debt,
however, the bank would recover its investment over the time. The
accounting loss would not diminish the banks' capacity to pay its
obligations vis-à-vis its own depositors and creditors.

If, however, the market price of the bond declines because its issuer
no longer pays, the banks' incoming cash flows would be lower than
hitherto expected, resulting in a payment loss - and this could, if
payment losses are large, make the bank default on its obligations.

The Issue of a Loss of Confidence
An accounting loss can easily develop into a payment loss. This is
because bad news about banks' financial health (profit warning) can
trigger a loss of confidence. Such a market reaction is rational,
given the system of fractional-reserve banking.

Under fractional-reserve banking, banks keep just a fraction of their
immediate payment obligations (basically sight deposits) in the form
of cash. As a consequence, they cannot meet all their payment
obligations should customers whish to withdraw their sight deposits
all at once.
However, banks enjoy a privilege granted by the government. Central
banks, the holders of the money supply monopoly, can provide banks
with whatever amount of cash is needed. With central banks acting as
lender of last resort, the chances for a bank run, initiated by
private savers, have been greatly reduced.

What spells trouble, however, is an institutional bank run: banks lose
confidence in each other. Most banks rely heavily on interbank
refinancing. And if interbank lending dries up, banks find it
increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain refinancing (at
an acceptable level of interest rates).

Maturity Transformation and Credit Derivatives

An institutional bank run is particularly painful for banks involved
in maturity transformation. Most banks borrow funds with short- and
medium-term maturities and invest them longer-term. As short- and
medium-term interest rates are typically lower than longer-term
yields, maturity transformation is a profitable.

However, in such a business, banks are exposed to rollover risk. If
short- and medium-term interest rates rise relative to (fixed)
longer-term yields, maturity transformation leads to losses - and in
the extreme case, banks can go bankrupt if they fail to obtain
refinancing funds for liabilities falling due.

Growing investor concern about rollover risks has the potential to
make a bank default on its payment obligations: interest rates for
bank refinancing go up, so that loans falling due would have to be
refinanced at (considerably) higher interest rates. The latest price
action clearly suggests that banks active in maturity transformation
could be up for quite some trouble (see graphs below).


In an environment of rapidly declining confidence in the banking
system, investor concerns about derivative instruments, credit
derivatives in particular, may well accelerate the very forces that
disintegrate the fiat-money regime.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with credit derivatives as such.
Credit derivatives are instruments that help to value, trade, and
reallocate existing risks among market participants, thereby making
the financial system more efficient.

However, the outstanding expansion of credit derivatives, heaped upon
a gigantic paper-credit pyramid, has been stimulated to a great
extent by central banks' chronic low interest rates, having made
investors search for yield pick-up and ignore credit and market risks.

There is little experience with how the financial positions of market
participants would be affected in the case of major players going
bankrupt. The extraordinary size and complexity of the
credit-derivative market could pose a substantial unwinding challenge
in the event of the exit of several major counterparties.

Closing out and replacing positions could lead to drastic changes in
underlying financial-asset prices. As investors cannot be sure that
all market participants could weather the consequences of a default
in the underlying credits or the effects of a prolonged disruption to
market liquidity, confidence in the solidity of the monetary order
may drop even faster in times of market stress.

Postponing the Ultimate Disaster

The issues outlined above are symptoms of the crumbling monetary
(dis)order. Their underlying causes are to be found in the
government-sponsored expansion of bank credit and money. It is a
system that stretches the monetary demand beyond the economies'
economic resources.
By artificially lowering the interest rate through credit expansion,
central banks induce inflation-induced boom-and-bust-cycles, which
lead to unsustainable debt levels. In all western countries overall
debt levels as a percent of GDP have gone up strongly in recent
decades.
Whenever financial markets set out to end the disastrous process
through, for instance, a decline in economic activity, governments
and their central banks will do whatever it takes to keep the
fiat-money system going: lowering interest rates by increasing credit
expansion and increasing the money supply.

In the current situation, however, banks' capacity to keep expanding
the credit and money supply has been greatly diminished: accounting
losses and - due to waning confidence in the system - presumably also
payment losses erode banks' equity capital further in the time to
come.
With their far-reaching coercive power, however, governments may, at
least temporarily, be in a position to prevent an imminent implosion
of the credit and money system. Governments can decide to
redistribute peoples' incomes on the grandest scale: shoring up
banks' eroding equity capital or guaranteeing financial institutions'
assets or liabilities, or nationalizing the banking/finance industry.

At a more technical level, central banks can be made to refinance
banks directly, thereby replacing the interbank markets altogether.
In such a regime, central banks would presumably not only fix the
short-term (overnight) interest rate but medium- to longer-term
interest rates as well.
Alternatively, central banks can prop up banks' capital base by
taking over their loss-making assets - a procedure already adopted by
the US Federal Reserve and by other central banks, as they have also
started accepting securities of questionable value in their
open-market operations.
When central banks form an international cartel - with the purpose of
preserving the fiat-money system - domestic banks wouldn't default,
even if their payment obligations are denominated in foreign currency
(which the national central bank cannot produce): central banks would
simply lend money to each other.

Abandoning the Path Towards Inflation

By increasing the base money supply in the interbank market,
guaranteeing financial institutions' liabilities or nationalizing the
banking industry, governments suppress free-market forces, which
could move the system back towards equilibrium.

There should be little doubt that, after decades of government
sponsored credit and money-supply expansion, such a correction would
be economically painful, accompanied by further bank failures and
output and employment losses.

However, it is hard to see how fighting the symptoms of the unfolding
monetary fiasco could solve its underlying cause. Starting the
printing presses wouldn't solve the debt crisis either.
Hyperinflation would cause economic and political damage to the
greatest possible extent.
To qualify as a remedy to present ills, government action needs to be
constrained to a far-reaching reform of the monetary systems, which,
if implemented properly, would neither cause deflation nor
inflation.[1] Markets need to be liberalized to the greatest extent
to allow prices to adjust back to equilibrium.

A return to sound money is needed. This would, as outlined by many
Austrian economists, require putting an end to government's monopoly
over monetary affairs. The power for determining the quantity and
quality of money must be returned to free-market forces. Money in the
hands of the government and its central bank would sooner or later
become the ruin of the free societal order.

As Ludwig von Mises noted,

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of
periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the
unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to
lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion.
There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought
about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis
should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of
further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe
of the currency system involved.[2]
Thorsten Polleit is Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of
Finance & Management. Comment on the blog.

Notes
[1] In this context see, for instance George Reisman, "Our Financial
House of Cards," 25 March 2008.

[2] Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Chapter XX, section 8.

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:50:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:25:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Windows is at worst a digression. This is like saying "Edison
didn't understand A/C, so he made no contribution to the science
of electricity."

no, it's like saying if gates had been around when radio & tv
were first invented his contribution would have been to
monopolize the methods of transmission
Sarnoff *did exactly that*, and a thousand stations bloomed.

no, the FCC controls the standards:

.. and Sarnoff (et al) wrote them.

so? the point is that NTSC is not a proprietary standard
It was developed 100% by people working for Sarnoff. It might be the
single
biggest leap in electronics transmission of its time. It packed
amazing amounts of data into a small space, well ahead of even the
electronics to support it.

there's no comparison between NTSC & anything microsoft does.

There was a non-technical component to the distribution of NTSC that is
the same. Sarnoff and Gates are comparable in that regard.

RCA was accused widely of monopolism in radio.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332

the specs
for NTSC are publicly available for all to use, the exact opposite is
the case for microsoft formats. the NTSC standard is not patent
encumbered by a highly predatory monopoly that coerces & intimidates to
create fear to prevent others from using the standards. these are
complete opposite ends of the spectrum, openness for the benefit of all
vs. closed for the benefit of one at the expense of all.

That's all 100% true - but then again, Windows apps don't have to
interoperate at that level to be useful. And I see this as not so much
arrogance as laziness. It's geek egocentrism - everybody wants to author
a protocol...

Have you ever seen a vertical hold knob on a TV? No? The vertical hold
knob was there because of thermal oscillator drift before there were
PLLs. You had to manually tune the oscillator from a knob on the front
of the set. We used to call it "the flippin' knob" because the frames
of the picture would roll vertically until you stopped it with the
knob.

that has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.

It has to do with the excellence of the NTSC standard.

The standard was well in advance of *component level support*. And a
million companies bloomed from it.

you want to ascribe to microsoft all the good qualities that come from
openness of standards as was the case for the evolution of tv, yet
microsoft does the exact opposite of those things. as i said earlier,
microsoft is but a huge roadblock standing in the way of the real
computer revolution because everything they do in pursuit of their own
self-interest is the exact opposite of what's good for everyone else.

If they are a roadblock, go around them. I'm saying that if they *can*
be not-open, and the market rewards that, then we have to question the
perceived utility of openness in that context.

and there's no
monopoly tax being charged to everyone for a license to use the
standard.
Sure there is. You just don't see it because it's not explicit.

you don't see it because it's not there. there was no proprietary
monopoly on the NTSC standard.

If TV had been of 100 different standards, there would have been no TV.
Software can be of an almost infinite array of standards, and still
remain useful.

What was
RCA worth in 1960? Who was the dominant player in TV technology? RCA.

whatever success RCA had was not the result of a monopoly on the NTSC
standard because there never was one.

it was a near-monopoly. And RCA had monopolistic tendencies in radio:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1332

NTSC is a masterpiece - shame it's dying in February. But it was 100%
developed in RCA laboratories, and it took a very long time for others
to catch up to RCA.

where are the equivalent masterpieces of publicly available, patent
unencumbered standards for the computer?

http://www.ietf.org/

http://www.ieee.org/web/education/802_Workshop/index.xml

it makes for a level playing field for all competitors as opposed to
one company having an unfair advantage of a monopoly over a standard
that everyone uses.

*All* standards are privately developed, and *all* standards are
developed with an eye towards competitive advantage.

Go grep the company names on the IETF standards documents. The name
"Cisco" will figure quite prominently.

the issue is openness of standards, not who develops them.
monopolizing standards for commodities used by all is nothing but a
roadblock to progress and benefits no one (except of course the
monopoly at the expense of everyone else).

Lock-in doesn't scare customers. They either don't care or don't
understand. I lean towards "don't care" - people are just not interested
in what makes it tick.

"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940
by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
resolve the conflicts that arose between companies over the
introduction of a nationwide analog television system in the United
States. In March 1941, the committee issued a technical standard
for black-and-white television that built upon a 1936
recommendation made by the Radio Manufacturers Association (RMA).
...
In January 1950 the Committee was reconstituted to standardize
color television. In December 1953, it unanimously approved what is
now called simply the NTSC color television standard (later defined
as RS-170a). The updated standard retained full backwards
compatibility ("compatible color") with older black-and-white
television sets. Color information was added to the black-and-white
image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 MHz
(approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. In order to minimize
interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound carrier,
the addition of the color subcarrier also required a slight
reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001
(very close to 29.97) frames per second, and changing the line
frequency from 15,750 Hz to 15,734.26 Hz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

That's nice. You do understand that in no case has the Federal
government ever had people who could engineer much if anything at
all?

My statement stands.

Weakly, if at all.

you just replied to your own reply, good work! (the "my statement
stands" is yours)

Heh. I missed that.

It was in the enlightened self interest of Sarnoff et al to publish
the standard *as* a standard to... achieve lock-in.

no, the FCC didn't give the choice.

So Sarnoff and the FCC had a confluence of interest....

Uh oh. Now how did that work again? Who was the dominant player in
television in 1960 again?

So of what value would 1000 different television protocols have been?

1000 different protocols would have been an ugly mess, which is exactly
what we have now in the computer industry, which is exactly why the FCC
made the NTSC standard at the beginning of the tv era:

It's not that ugly.

"The National Television System Committee was established in 1940 by
the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) *** to
resolve the conflicts that arose between companies *** over the
introduction of a nationwide analog television system in the United
States."

this is exactly what is needed in the computer industry.

None. That's what.

yes and it does a fine job of refuting a point that has nothing to do
with anything i've said (see above).

Aw sheesh. Ignore it at your peril. The marketplace *provided
incentives for otherwise intolerably arrogant people to play nice*.
They didn't do it out of altruism, boy.

such that only by buying a license to use a microsoft demodulator
in your tv or radio would you be able to receive broadcasts.
No, that literally is Qualcomm...

Uh... hello?

*Knock knock*...

my comment was about when radio & tv were first invented so i'll
reply to your qualcomm comment right after you explain how a company
founded in 1985 has anything to do with it.

Qualcomm hold patents on just bout every wireless protocol in use
today. Some are open, some are not.

I dunno... maybe there are... parallels or something.... ?

my original comment was:

"that was back in the days when scientific advancements were put to use
for the public good before corporations started hijacking the process
to line their own pockets"

to the extent which qualcomm uses microsoft's business tactics to use
monopoly leverage to lock in consumers and lock out competitors on
commodity products that everyone uses, i'd say they fall into the
second part of the above quote. i'd also say that using monopoly
leverage that way is a violation of antitrust law which microsoft has
no reservations about breaking because it knows the cost of getting
convicted is a minor business expense compared to the tens of $billions
of profit that the illegally maintained monopoly generates. this type
of business model needs to be recognized for what it is which is just
exploitation. however, since the regulators responsible for controlling
this kind of abuse have become complicit in the scheme (via campaign
contributions, lobbying, high-paid jobs in private sector after leaving
office, etc) the problem is not so easily fixed. and it does not help
that a bunch of useful idiots brainwashed into swallowing the
monopoly-centric viewpoint (that was pounded into their heads using
$billions of profits from the illegally maintained monopoly) going
around praising what a great company is that which does the most
exploiting. so while the idealistic goal of holding corporations to a
standard that they actually provide a net positive impact to the
society in which they exist may never be realized it would be a least
desirable to minimize the amount of exploitation to the extent
possible. so in other words, just getting the useful idiots to stop
rooting for the wrong team would lead to an improvement.

I agree - fundamentally - that this *should* be the case. Every user
should be very concerned. They're just ... not. This disinterest leads
me to think it's not that important.

but that was back in the days when scientific advancements were
put to use for the public good before corporations started
hijacking the process to line their own pockets.

Look again. We need the hucksters, too. I don't care for it much
myself, but there it is.

i disagree, we don't need the hucksters.
Do you live in a jar?

what we need is corporations
competing legitimately on the merits of their products/services as
opposed to manipulating the legal system, circumventing antitrust
laws and locking in consumers with predatory monopoly practices
(ie. microsoft's sole business strategy).

*Sigh*. You know nothing of what actually occurs in the wild, then.
No dance before the tune, sir.

if that's your defense for the hucksters then i rest my case.

Well, I'm not sure I can explain it to you if you're committed to
ignoring it. And that's fine. Suffice it to say that ten million
interested potential customers is a whole lot better than ten, a
thousand, ten thousand.

Especially for media tech, *mass* is interesting. Narrow isn't.

except that without microsoft monopolizing it would have been done a
whole lot better with a far larger number of competitors comprising a
much larger market generating much higher revenue and with far more and
better products available to consumers at lower prices.

I'm not sure of that at all. If that were the case, we'd probably see
better penetration of Linux in the marketplace. We really don't.

Or worse yet - let's set the price of software at "free" and see
where that gets you.
charging for software is like charging for math equations in a
text book. what the software industry has devolved into is a
taxing authority by monopolizing commodity applications.
Meh. Office, for example, doesn't cost that much. Pure 'Doze,
either.

the cost is astronomical, it's the amount of microsoft's total
revenue, hundreds of billions of dollars spent over the years for
what? commodity software...



In context, it's SFA. Various IBM offerings (like os 360) cost more,
much more, than people were willing to pay.

further ignore-izance...

this has nothing to do with monopolizing standards.

It has to do with t6he context the standards operate in.

if the industry ever got to the
point where there was real competition there would be no need to
charge for software because all the producers would be focused on
adding value as opposed to lock in.
Oh dear... I disagree. For one, "lock in" cuts both ways. For
another, "developers, developers, developers" - 'Doze simply has
more and better apps.

People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
having.

Hello?

what? you expect me to respond to your statement:

"People don't want good software. They want what everybody else is
having."

Right.

ok, fine. my response is that the statement is ludicrous, i believe
people want great software but because of the microsoft monopoly they
are stuck with crap.

They want it. Otherwise you are submitting in front of everybody that
they somehow wandered zombie like under he pure personal charisma of
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to buy the stuff.

it's called monopoly coercion.

And I don't believe in it.

Hell, for all I know, the "crap" part made it "better" in terms of the
marketplace. After all, nobody wants to listen to those propeller
heads, do they?

(you should see where I am going with this..?)

you're going nowhere with it...

Okay then.

with the value-add model the paycheck comes from service &
support, actually helping people be more productive, as opposed
to monopolistic coercion.

It *can* work. It doesn't work very often. There's no good
solution for DAW in free software, the various embedded Linuces
tend to have - *tend* to have - high TCO (although a few ucLinux
packages don't ) and certain comms packages are dismal
(surprisingly). Not fit for production work, I fear.

I've tried, believe me, and "free" just repeatedly fails. *Not
always*. But it's hard.

it's hard because of microsoft.
That is *moronic*. You cannot blame the exit-path on what the
exit-path *avoids*.

if in order for a non-microsoft system to be usable for the average
person it must be able to interact seamlessly with microsoft formats
then, yes, there is no other place to put the blame for
incompatibility then on microsoft which is responsible for the
ever-changing closed (proprietary) formats and the relentless effort
of preventing open standards from being established.

:) You should actually blame the lousy formats on those who originated
them. M$ started Word outta a company called Samna ( which they
aquired). I once had to write a *parser* for the bloody things, and
all the docs were from Samna.

the issue isn't the formats being lousy, the issue is openness and them
being publicly available for all to use equally and not being
threatened by patent infringement lawsuits.

"which is responsible for the ever-changing closed (proprietary) formats
and the relentless effort of preventing open standards from being
established."

I honestly think that M$ doesn't *care* about open anything, they just
cared (past tense) about what they offered. There's no conspiracy,
just "WTF?" on their part. They didn't *think* about it.

all microsoft cares about is maintaining the monopoly (illegally much
of the time) such that they can continue to collect tens of $billions
from consumers for commodity products, and to do that they must keep
all formats closed which as i've said countless times already is of no
benefit to anyone except microsoft and is a detriment (ie. pain in the
butt) to everyone else.

It keeps people employed defending it. That's what people are interested
in. If it worked out of the box, half the IT people wouldn't have jobs.

all of the formats for everything from spreadsheets/wordprocessing
to audio/video have to be reverse engineered from the constantly
changing assortment that microsoft puts out to coerce continuous
upgrades and to make it at as difficult as possible for those
groups trying to establish standards that would be for the benefit
of everyone.

Can't go over it, better go around it.

it's the difference between doing what's in the best interest of
advancing technology for the benefit for everyone vs. the monopoly-
centric viewpoint of serving ones own interest at the expense of
everyone else.

But the people you are talking about have expanded the footprint of
technology more than Bell Labs itself.

microsoft expanded technology more than bell labs? i doubt that you'll
find much support for that statement.

Expanded *the footprint*. And Bell hasn't done much lately....

Sword-swallowing at the dinner table isn't interesting. it's
nauseating. Sword-swallowing in the *circus* is interesting. I won't
hold circus builders in contempt, because they make sword swallowing
entertainment instead of vaguely unsettling.

sorry, i can't reply to that because i have no idea of what it is
supposed to mean.

The people who create the context in which a product is interesting
are just as responsible for the utility of the product as those who
cerate it outright.

nothing to do with monopolizing standards.

Okay then.

Except *they don't*. Which is my point. Trying to fight culture with
knives... isn't going to work very well.

Ooooh... my knife is *sharp*. Yeah, so what?

(BTW I do actually offer a free software package - a niche thing
that's had a handful of takers. Works great, less filling. Runs on
'Doze. And I *HAVE* to have grep/tcl/which/other script
pipes/languages to do anything on a 'Doze box:)
-
Les Cargill

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:03:34 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:50:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

It keeps people employed defending it. That's what people are interested
in. If it worked out of the box, half the IT people wouldn't have jobs..

if your position is of defending the business strategy of continually and
calculatedly violating antitrust law to illegally maintain a monopoly
because it generates far more profit than the cost of penalties for
settlements/convictions, why don't you just come right out and say so?  
then we can be more direct about what we are discussing.

The end customer
doesn't care. Since those who accuse others of antitrust inevitably
fall away anyway, in the end, nobody cares. IMO, had Scott McNeely not
followed the strategy he followed, Sun would be in much better shape -
just ignore M$ and concentrate on building things.

I think end customers *should* care. But they don't.

The moral justifications for antitrust law are not defensible beyond
a very shallow level. It sounds good, but when you poke at it a wee
bit, it collapses.

And finally, people seem to need a "Thomas Edison invented the
lightbulb" simplified myth to understand a new technology. This
completely ignores any facts of the case, but they need it all the
same.

--
Les Cargill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:03:34 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:50:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:43:18 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:


It keeps people employed defending it. That's what people are interested
in. If it worked out of the box, half the IT people wouldn't have jobs.


if your position is of defending the business strategy of continually and
calculatedly violating antitrust law to illegally maintain a monopoly
because it generates far more profit than the cost of penalties for
settlements/convictions, why don't you just come right out and say so?
then we can be more direct about what we are discussing.

On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:





On Oct 11, 12:10 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------

   invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
   post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
   Elibraies(),  HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,  On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
   Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
   GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB

So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

  Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
  It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
  Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
  laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
  Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs,  risc++,  Post AT&T fiber optics,
  Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
  HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
  rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there's no money in  it?

Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?  So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.

   Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
   which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
   XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
   HDTV, Optical Computers,  Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
   USB, and  Cruise Missiles.
   Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

  Good point.  We've had quite enough of stupid,

greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do.  Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need controlled nuclear fusion.  Unlimited, clean energy.  The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space.  It is doable.  But, it isn't being done.  That is the problem.- Hide quoted text -

  Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
  A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
  neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
  modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
  not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
  power grid to come with a solution to anything.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're missing the point.  Most "new" engineering technologies are
bells and whistles variants designed to make money and not to help
society.

   That is  *THE POINT*.  Since we''re  here to do *ENGIINEERING*,
make MONEY,
   make *ELIBRAIRES*, make *post-GM-HOLOGRAMS*, LASER-GUIDED LASERS,
   make post-stooge Chicago Robotics  adpative PV Cell Arrays, RISC+
+,
   CD+RW, DVD-stack,  HDTV[], USB, XML,  post AT&T fiiber optics,
   *OPTICAL* COMPUTERS,  and NOT to work for  * IBM NANO-IMBECILES*.

  Capitalism does not produce important new technologies, if

it can possibly avoid it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, engineers are of no social utility whatsoever, because
the only thing they're interested in is making money.
Thanks for clarifying that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 12, 4:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:10 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape..net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------

   invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
   post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
   Elibraies(),  HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,  On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
   Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
   GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB

So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

  Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
  It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
  Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
  laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
  Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs,  risc++,  Post AT&T fiber optics,
  Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
  HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
  rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there's no money in  it?

Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?  So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.

   Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
   which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
   XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
   HDTV, Optical Computers,  Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
   USB, and  Cruise Missiles.
   Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

  Good point.  We've had quite enough of stupid,

greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do.  Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need controlled nuclear fusion.  Unlimited, clean energy.  The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space.  It is doable.  But, it isn't being done.  That is the problem.- Hide quoted text -

  Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
  A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
  neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
  modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
  not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
  power grid to come with a solution to anything.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're missing the point.  Most "new" engineering technologies are
bells and whistles variants designed to make money and not to help
society.

   That is  *THE POINT*.  Since we''re  here to do *ENGIINEERING*,
make MONEY,
   make *ELIBRAIRES*, make *post-GM-HOLOGRAMS*, LASER-GUIDED LASERS,
   make post-stooge Chicago Robotics  adpative PV Cell Arrays, RISC+
+,
   CD+RW, DVD-stack,  HDTV[], USB, XML,  post AT&T fiiber optics,
   *OPTICAL* COMPUTERS,  and NOT to work for  * IBM NANO-IMBECILES*.

  Capitalism does not produce important new technologies, if

it can possibly avoid it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, engineers are of no social utility whatsoever, because
the only thing they're interested in is making money.
Thanks for clarifying that.- Hide quoted text -

   Well, the best one mostly are interested in making HOLOGRAMS,
   ROBOTS, RISC++, Elibraries, HDTV[], CD-rw,DVD-stack, post Ford
batteries,
   post AT&T fiber optics, adaptive PV Cells, laser-guided lasers,
masers,
   cruise missiles, XML, and USB and telling morons like economists to
get a job
   with some  Microsoft lamo.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 12, 4:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:10 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape..net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------

   invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
   post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
   Elibraies(),  HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,  On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
   Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
   GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB

So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

  Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
  It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
  Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
  laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
  Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs,  risc++,  Post AT&T fiber optics,
  Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
  HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
  rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there's no money in  it?

Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?  So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.

   Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
   which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
   XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
   HDTV, Optical Computers,  Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
   USB, and  Cruise Missiles.
   Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

  Good point.  We've had quite enough of stupid,

greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do.  Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need controlled nuclear fusion.  Unlimited, clean energy.  The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space.  It is doable.  But, it isn't being done.  That is the problem.- Hide quoted text -

  Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
  A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
  neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
  modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
  not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
  power grid to come with a solution to anything.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're missing the point.  Most "new" engineering technologies are
bells and whistles variants designed to make money and not to help
society.

   That is  *THE POINT*.  Since we''re  here to do *ENGIINEERING*,
make MONEY,
   make *ELIBRAIRES*, make *post-GM-HOLOGRAMS*, LASER-GUIDED LASERS,
   make post-stooge Chicago Robotics  adpative PV Cell Arrays, RISC+
+,
   CD+RW, DVD-stack,  HDTV[], USB, XML,  post AT&T fiiber optics,
   *OPTICAL* COMPUTERS,  and NOT to work for  * IBM NANO-IMBECILES*.

  Capitalism does not produce important new technologies, if

it can possibly avoid it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, engineers are of no social utility whatsoever, because
the only thing they're interested in is making money.
Thanks for clarifying that.- Hide quoted text -

   Well, the best one mostly are interested in making HOLOGRAMS,
   ROBOTS, RISC++, Elibraries, HDTV[], CD-rw,DVD-stack, post Ford
batteries,
   post AT&T fiber optics, adaptive PV Cells, laser-guided lasers,
masers,
   cruise missiles, XML, and USB and telling morons like economists to
get a job
   with some  Microsoft lamo.





- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 Although, I realize that the Capitalist true believers
do have some difficulty grasping the imperfections in
their system.  Even, as it collapses around their ears.

So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing unlimited,
clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space through controlled
nuclear fusion? Is there something seriously wrong with their heads?
Or, are they exclusively interested in making money, and know that
controlled nuclear fusion would be impossible to patent?

Jerry Kraus wrote:
..

So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing unlimited,
clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space through controlled
nuclear fusion? Is there something seriously wrong with their heads?
Or, are they exclusively interested in making money, and know that
controlled nuclear fusion would be impossible to patent?

Controlled nuclear fusion may be possible only with mondial investment

 And without outside pressure, the University scientists
simply do nothing whatsoever.  At great length, too.

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:18 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------------------

So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing
unlimited, clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space
through controlled nuclear fusion?  Is there something seriously
wrong with their heads? Or, are they exclusively interested in
making money, and know that controlled nuclear fusion would be
impossible to patent?

Controlled nuclear fusion may be possible only with mondial investment

Perhaps.  Although I doubt it need be quite that expensive.  I think
the ITER fusion project in France is an overblown exercise in
bureaucratic job creation.  I do think it will require some government
involvement, though.  Too expensive and dangerous for the backyard
inventors.  Not enough of a gaurantee of a financial return for the
big companies, because the work could be easily modified and copied,
once completed.  And without outside pressure, the University
scientists simply do nothing whatsoever.

Odd about fusion with that last.

At great length, too.

Kicked you out did they ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 12, 6:05 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:





On Oct 12, 4:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:10 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun....@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo..com> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------

   invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
   post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
   Elibraies(),  HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,  On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
   Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
   GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB

So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

  Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
  It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
  Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
  laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
  Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs,  risc++,  Post AT&T fiber optics,
  Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
  HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
  rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there's no money in  it?

Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?  So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.

   Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
   which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
   XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
   HDTV, Optical Computers,  Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
   USB, and  Cruise Missiles.
   Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

  Good point.  We've had quite enough of stupid,

greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do.  Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need controlled nuclear fusion.  Unlimited, clean energy..  The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space.  It is doable.  But, it isn't being done.  That is the problem.- Hide quoted text -

  Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
  A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
  neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
  modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
  not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
  power grid to come with a solution to anything.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're missing the point.  Most "new" engineering technologies are
bells and whistles variants designed to make money and not to help
society.

   That is  *THE POINT*.  Since we''re  here to do *ENGIINEERING*,
make MONEY,
   make *ELIBRAIRES*, make *post-GM-HOLOGRAMS*, LASER-GUIDED LASERS,
   make post-stooge Chicago Robotics  adpative PV Cell Arrays, RISC+
+,
   CD+RW, DVD-stack,  HDTV[], USB, XML,  post AT&T fiiber optics,
   *OPTICAL* COMPUTERS,  and NOT to work for  * IBM NANO-IMBECILES*.

  Capitalism does not produce important new technologies, if

it can possibly avoid it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, engineers are of no social utility whatsoever, because
the only thing they're interested in is making money.
Thanks for clarifying that.- Hide quoted text -

   Well, the best one mostly are interested in making HOLOGRAMS,
   ROBOTS, RISC++, Elibraries, HDTV[], CD-rw,DVD-stack, post Ford
batteries,
   post AT&T fiber optics, adaptive PV Cells, laser-guided lasers,
masers,
   cruise missiles, XML, and USB and telling morons like economists to
get a job
   with some  Microsoft lamo.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing unlimited,
clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space through controlled
nuclear fusion?

Or, are they exclusively interested in making money, and know that
controlled nuclear fusion would be impossible to patent?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote





Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote
Jerry Kraus wrote
So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing
unlimited, clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space
through controlled nuclear fusion? Is there something seriously
wrong with their heads? Or, are they exclusively interested in
making money, and know that controlled nuclear fusion would be
impossible to patent?
Controlled nuclear fusion may be possible only with mondial investment
Perhaps. Although I doubt it need be quite that expensive. I think
the ITER fusion project in France is an overblown exercise in
bureaucratic job creation. I do think it will require some
government involvement, though. Too expensive and dangerous for the
backyard inventors. Not enough of a gaurantee of a financial return
for the big companies, because the work could be easily modified
and copied, once completed. And without outside pressure, the
University scientists simply do nothing whatsoever.
Odd about fusion with that last.
At great length, too.
Kicked you out did they ?

Spot on in fact.

It's a highly politicized environment, Rod.

No news to me boy.

Independance is not tolerated.

Plenty manage to remain independant.

YOU got kicked out.

Which is why they never get anything done.

Odd about Rutherford, Fleming, HIV/AIDS, fusion, DNA, etc etc etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 14, 10:53 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:





On Oct 12, 6:05 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 12, 4:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 11, 6:13 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:10 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 7:25 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:18 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:38 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:24 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:11 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:24 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 4:37 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun....@netscape.net
wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­­­­­­­­­­--------------------------------

   invented the post-GE fiber optics, post-GM Holograms, post-AT&T
booking,
   post-Ford Batteries, Phishing filters, Optical Computers, risc++,
parallel processors,
   Elibraies(),  HDTV[], Blogs, On-Line-Publishing,  On-Line-Banking,
CD+rw, DVD-stack,
   Linux, All-In-One Printers, AUVs, AAVs, Cruise Missiles, laser-
guided lasers,
   GPS, AAVs, AUVs, XML, and USB

So, why haven't these engineering geniuses invented something really
useful, like controlled nuclear fusion -- unlimited free energy?

  Since controlled nuclear fusion is just like cold fusion.
  It belongs in the idiot department of *CHEMISTRY* not *ENGINEERING*.
  Since the engineers make A.I. Adaptive PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
piezo,
  laser-guided lasers, post GM Holograms, post Ford batteries, post
neandtheral robotics,
  Cruise Missiles, AAVs, AUVs,  risc++,  Post AT&T fiber optics,
  Elibraries, Blogs, On-Line-Publlishing, On-Line-Banking, GPS, neo
wind energy,
  HDTV, CD+rw, DVD-stack, XML, Optical Computers, and USB,
  rather than idiot G.E. philosopers.

Maybe, because there's no money in  it?

Or, maybe, because it's too big and too dangerous to do in your
basement?  So, you need some government control and direction to
invent it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Splendid, lets get rid of these moronic engineers and invest in
Chemistry and Physics.

   Well, you're seeing the only thing real *ENGINEERS* invest in
retarded *PHYSICS*.,
   which is post-AT&T fiber optics, post-ford batteries, post GM
Holograms,
   XML, On-Line-Banking, On-Line Publishing, laser-guided lasers, CD
+rw, DVD-stack,
   HDTV, Optical Computers,  Adaptive PV Cells, Adaptive Piezo, All-In-
One Printers,
   USB, and  Cruise Missiles.
   Since they don't call Physicists imbecile IBM mathematicians, for
no reason.

  Good point.  We've had quite enough of stupid,

greedy engineers building devices to steal money and kill people.
That is, quite obviously, all engineers know how to do.  Thanks for
the feedback.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need controlled nuclear fusion.  Unlimited, clean energy.  The
power to colonize the solar system and exploit the resources of outer
space.  It is doable.  But, it isn't being done.  That is the problem.- Hide quoted text -

  Well, that may or not be true, but you're still missing the point
that the
  A.I. parallel processors, multitaskers, fiber optics, CD, DVD, HDTV,
Elibraries, holograms,
  neo wind energy, neo solar energy, microwave ovens, biodiesel, GPS,
and
  modern robotics were all invented since the people in engineering
are still
  not going to wait a day for the blood-sucking tax-cranks running the
  power grid to come with a solution to anything.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're missing the point.  Most "new" engineering technologies are
bells and whistles variants designed to make money and not to help
society.

   That is  *THE POINT*.  Since we''re  here to do *ENGIINEERING*,
make MONEY,
   make *ELIBRAIRES*, make *post-GM-HOLOGRAMS*, LASER-GUIDED LASERS,
   make post-stooge Chicago Robotics  adpative PV Cell Arrays, RISC+
+,
   CD+RW, DVD-stack,  HDTV[], USB, XML,  post AT&T fiiber optics,
   *OPTICAL* COMPUTERS,  and NOT to work for  * IBM NANO-IMBECILES*.

  Capitalism does not produce important new technologies, if

it can possibly avoid it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In other words, engineers are of no social utility whatsoever, because
the only thing they're interested in is making money.
Thanks for clarifying that.- Hide quoted text -

   Well, the best one mostly are interested in making HOLOGRAMS,
   ROBOTS, RISC++, Elibraries, HDTV[], CD-rw,DVD-stack, post Ford
batteries,
   post AT&T fiber optics, adaptive PV Cells, laser-guided lasers,
masers,
   cruise missiles, XML, and USB and telling morons like economists to
get a job
   with some  Microsoft lamo.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, why aren't the best engineers interested in developing unlimited,
clean energy, and the power to exploit outer space through controlled
nuclear fusion?

  Because the best *engineers* have been workng on intelligent robots,
neo Wind Energy,
  neo Solar Enegy, bio-diesel, RISC++,  PV Cell Arrays, Adaptive
Piezo,  fiber optics,
  Laser-Guided Lasers Optical Computers, Elibraries,  HDTV, CD, DVD,
  Post McDonald's Holograms, post Ford Batteries, Satellites, Drones,
AUVs,  AVVs,
  Blogs, On-Line-Banking,  On-line-Publishing, and Cruise Missiles for
the last 50 years.
  Since like the idiots in Science have been  told since the year
crank Quantum Mechanics
  was invented, :Unlimited  ANYTHIING is just a MYTH.

  Is there something seriously wrong with their heads?



Or, are they exclusively interested in making money, and know that
controlled nuclear fusion would be impossible to patent?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -