"I don't want to hear explanations,"
" "I don't want to hear explanations," says it all!
68 posts • joined 9 May 2007
As if suggesting that not being educated was never any form of personal attack; then saying that I accused you of bigotry, when all I did was suggest that saying a lack of formal education discredited me, was a new form of apartheid and then you use the word "crank"and run away with a "Bye". My personal opinion is that you have been taught to run away from new thinking; that is not a personal attack if that is a true reflection of the statements you have made. Disagreements have been a significant part of science for centuries. Try reading The Man Who Knew Too Much by Stephen Inwood; you will learn that you are simply a reflection of how real science has worked for centuries.
So, now reflect that the conventional description of the relationship between the proton and the electron does not conform to the rules for electromagnetism, as laid down by James Clerk Maxwell; or, again, that Hooke's Law does not provide a full description of the forces within any spring and that the demonstration of such presented to the Royal Society in 2011 has recently been upgraded and will be presented soon.
You live within a steady state universe that is entirely electromagnetic and Newtonian; get used to it.
Nice of you to forget that some of the greatest strides forward were made, not by conventional scientists, but amateurs. But then you believe in scientific apartheid, "the man must be a fool as he has not the right colour of education". The foreword for the book was written by someone that is now President of a major US university, not that that will interest you with your head proverbially buried in your own version of apartheid having been taught by rote; not to look at new thinking, but to denigrate it at every opportunity. Very impressive!
The experiment, or at least the most recent was delivered to the Royal Society during 2011. That has also been added to the book as a part of a chapter titled Misunderstanding Isaac Newton. Again, an earlier experiment to show a beam of light would be diverted by a large mass resulted in my being given a 950 Kg steel bar that now resides beside the wind tunnel in the basement of the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Houston.
Again, why does no one want to review the book if it is so utterly stupid, as it would be an easy thing to do; except that, as I see it, they who have received it dare not do so, and that does include the BBC, (two copies), and the Royal Society. There is also a copy in the British Library and every major national library, including the Bodlian. Go have a read and then come back and comment.
As I understand gravity, having written a book on the subject, gravity is a result of the positive electromagnetic force field of the proton extending beyond the orbit of it's electron, (which is a part of the electromagnetic force field structure of every proton), to attach, (under the rules laid down by James Clerk Maxwell, A positive field will always seek to attach to the closest negative potential, or extend to infinity), to the negative potential of any adjacent proton's electron, as that adjacent proton rotates past; with the constant movement of all protons within mass causing such attachments, and subsequent detachments, to reflect the energy level of the mass.
Inertial mass is caused by the same attachments, as within solid mass, to attach to all adjacent mass. Thus gas molecules are always similarly attached to each other by the same mechanism, regardless of distance. As such, these Gas Molecule Attachment Force Columns, extend from the planet surface to attach to any other mass object and provide the force necessary to resist movement.
Gravity is simply an electromagnetic force field attachment between all protons and the attachments, (and subsequent detachments caused by the rotation of each proton), create the photons reflecting the energy level of that local mass. The same mechanism creates inertia.
"- Dreadful documentation, support and "knowledge" on the internet. A million forums and how-to's full of garbage."
Could not agree more. MINT is delivered with everything one needs other than being able to purchase documentation that gives a complete listing of the packages and how to use them. Not everyone that moved from MS to Linux has a background in software; no one seems to care about those of us that just want to use the software for other purposes than self congratulation.
Gravity is a constant and there is no one trying to say that gravity can be disconnected. In which case, the force of gravity must exist throughout the universe. If a force called gravity exists throughout the universe, then the space between mass in deep space; cannot be empty. If space is not empty, then every photon traveling through space must be traveling through the force called gravity. So the challenge was to describe what gravity is and how it worked.
Mass is formed from protons, thus, for the gravitational properties of mass to exist, the proton must be gravitationally connected to another proton. But we are told that the negative electron balances the positive proton and as such, all gas molecules, (especially including all gas molecules in space), are thus free to travel without contact with each other. Ergo; Ideal Gas Law tells us that temperature and pressure are related to the speed of impact of the gas molecule upon the walls of the container. Again, nucleosynthesis demands the speed of impact between atoms of mass as the primary driving force for the creation of elements. So now we have to accept a mismatch between science and logic. Gravity cannot be disconnected and thus is always a force between protons; yet gas molecules are totally disconnected from each other.
From that starting point, it came to me that there is no such thing as a Black Particle; a particle with no external observable field, that if we can observe the proton it must exhibit an external field; and thus the modern depiction of the electromagnetic properties of the proton within a gas molecule, do not conform to the rules for electromagnetism, as laid down by James Clerk Maxwell. That a positive field always seeks the closest negative potential or extends to infinity and that, as the gravitational properties of the Earth extend beyond the Moons orbit, then a small proportion of the positive field of the proton, must extend beyond the orbit of the proton's electron and that in turn, brings the electromagnetic force field of the proton into conformance with James Clerk Maxwell. In which case, the next closest negative potential must the an adjacent proton's electron. Logic demands the question; is gravity caused by the surplus positive electromagnetic force field of a proton, extending beyond the orbit of that proton's electron, to attach to the next closest proton's electron?
If that logic is correct, then deep space is full of the electromagnetic force field attachments between all the protons, forming the nucleus within all the gas molecules, in deep space; and thus all photons must be traveling through these electromagnetic force field attachments. In which case, Red Shift denotes distance traveled by the photon, rather than speed of movement of the source of the photon. That in turn drove the creation of a completely new model for the electromagnetic force field structure within the proton; that now fully complies conformance with Maxwell.
Ergo the title: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy.
Anyone flying any form of conventional aircraft, gliders are a very good example; know full well that the air we fly in is regulated primarily for safety reasons. When we fly, we know before we take off that there are areas of the sky that we are not permitted to enter. Yes, we can still enter if we fully comply with the accepted regulations. The entire system is designed to prevent collisions between aircraft. It is that simple, we all agree to abide with the regulations because our lives depend upon everyone else also doing the same thing for the same reason. To understand the overall problem, may I suggest that every drone owner visit their local gliding club and buy a copy of the relevant, (to their considered drone flying location), 1/4 million air flight chart which will show in full detail where and where not they can fly in safety. It would also make sense if they also, at the same time, purchase a copy of the relevant flying laws which will always also be available at their local gliding club. To find you local gliding club use the BGA British Gliding Association web site www.gliding.co.uk Better still, go learn to fly a conventional glider, a wonderful sport, and make friends for life at the launch point while learning why the rules are there in the first place; to protect lives.
Over many years, anyone following the rulings delivered by the appeal court will have come to the conclusion that the next step for the employees is to take this to the House of Lords; Now called The Supreme Court. It is certainly true that many appeal court rulings have been reversed.
Long ago I formed the personal opinion that the appeal court, for their own reasons, leaves matters open to be taken on to the Lords for a final ruling.
"You can describe the universe with forces (Newton) or you can describe the universe as curved space (Einstein). It's not a matter of either one being "wrong"; they are incommensurable descriptions and both are useful. Feynman's 12th Lecture:
Characteristics of Force "
To stay within the remits of the rules for discussion here, I have to do my best to strip this debate down to a very basic level. Ergo, to start, these are the two quotations I will use from the Feynman lecture:
“To push the molecules only slightly closer together requires a great force, because the molecular repulsion rapidly becomes very great at distances less than d. If the molecules are pulled slightly apart there is a slight attraction, which increases as the separation increases. If they are pulled sufficiently hard, they will separate permanently—the bond is broken.”
“This particular illustration does not describe correctly the way in which Einstein’s geometry is “weird,” but it illustrates that if we distort the geometry sufficiently it is possible that all gravitation is related in some way to pseudo forces; that is the general idea of the Einsteinian theory of gravitation.”
In the first quotation; “the bond is broken” In the second; “ but it illustrates that if we distort the geometry sufficiently it is possible that all gravitation is related in some way to pseudo forces”.
But gravity between all the mass remains in place at all times. If that is so, then it becomes impossible for the bond, (gravity), between molecules to be broken. It is this simple anomaly that has become the bane of science ever since it was created. Einstein could not define the origin of gravity, as Feynman himself admits; “the origin of these forces remains obscure.” So Einstein created a solution involving pseudo forces, the distortion of Space Time.
Thus this has been a debate in front of everyone since Einstein, including Feynman, to provide a solution to the true origin of the force of gravity; the bond that is NOT broken.
Gravity is caused by the positive electromagnet force field of each proton extending beyond the orbit of that proton’s electron, to attach to the closest adjacent proton’s electron. The “bond” is never broken and as such, conforms fully to the laws of electromagnetism as laid down by James Clerk Maxwell.
The sudden hole in the clouds will be caused by the same thing with a hurricane eye, right at the centre of the rotating hurricane; only in this case it is the attachment of the gas molecules in the atmosphere, forming Gas Molecule Attachment Force Columns, (gravity is caused by the attachment of gas molecules to mass), between the Earth and the Sun forming a vortex, no different than any other vortex is caused by a rotating mass within an atmosphere. Simple!
"Such requests are futile, as groups like the UK’s GCHQ are usually exempted from FoI laws."
Some years ago I had an interesting conversation, over the telephone, with Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, (he was always listed and did indeed answer the phone when called). He made it crystal clear, everyone answers to the law; no one can be excluded from the law of the land; all laws apply to everyone; so this statement is entirely wrong and indeed; unlawful.
My previous understanding of the nature of deep space was that there are indeed atoms of various elements widely spaced apart, but that they are separated and act as individual atoms. Indeed, deep space has often been described as having particles emerging and then disappearing under rules long ago laid out in Quantum Physics; yet here, and frequently recently the rules have been changed to permit the publication, (without contention), of the following phrase: "When the ejecta smash into the starbirth's surrounding gas".
A gas is surely a quite different external environment in deep space? To my knowledge, the only book, (an e-book), published that describes exactly why we can make that change in perception, has never been reviewed by anyone, the author was shunned and as such the book was removed from availability to await funding for publication as a normal hardback book.
Returning to the wonderful image; no mention has been made of the seemingly vast expanse of space that has been obliterated by a dark cloud mostly beneath the main image. If we were dealing with an event on this planet, when we see such a drifting cloud we would naturally assume that the cloud was drifting away from the event as a cloud of dust that blocked out the sun. But how does that drift occur in deep space?
There must be an external gravitational influence, causing the resulting dust cloud to drift, as though within a moving homogeneous gas atmosphere surrounds the entire display...... IN DEEP SPACE!
There is much more to this image than has been reported here.
Rather than argue for or against, why not add some new thinking? If this paper is correct, then we also have to take into account the action of the sea at sea level. If, say, sea level had been stable for the last 3 million years; while the Eastern Seaboard had risen 35 metres; then every tidal estuary would be situated within a 35 metre escarpment on each side of the bay. However, anyone that has, for example, spent some time in Washington DC will be able to tell you that the land surrounding the tidal levels of the sea does not have 35 metre escarpments on each side.
Yes, sea levels have both risen and fallen during the last 3 million years. What AGW proponents argue is that sea levels have never been higher, (during the period CO2 was between 180 and 300 ppm), than today; and as such, with a steady rise in the surface levels of the ES, we ought to be able to observe the interaction between the rising land and the action of the sea; at sea level; constantly eroding the rising land.
A shoreline, 35 metres above present sea level, but with no erosion caused by the sea between the present sea level and the old shoreline, to my mind, seems to point to either a sudden rise in land levels or a sudden drop in sea levels; where erosion cannot become a factor.
Was that scenario taken into account in the research?
Joerg is correct to point out that "creating a simulation based upon assumptions" is a childish fantasy.
The underlying problem is the assumption that the laws of physics are immutable; laid down on stone tablets.
There is at least one much better explanation of the forces involved with the formation of the arms of a galaxy that has been out there for more than a decade; but it has not been reviewed because the new thinking challenges the assumptions laid down on those stone tablets.
As a British inventor that has just had a new patent granted, GB2447526, I can say a few things here that should be seen as relevant to the discussion. In the first place, it took the UK IPO very nearly 5 years to deliver the patent, while, at the same time, the Japan Patent Office makes a big thing that they do their best to deliver a patent within days. Their reasoning being that speed delivers a real, definable, competitive advantage to their nation. Here, my own experience shows us that the UK IPO seems to want to see something that they know and can immediately understand. So anything bringing forward new knowledge is suppressed rather than appreciated and they sit on it because they cannot understand new thinking; where in point of fact, true invention delivers something that NO ONE has ever before created.
The other side of the coin is well represented here. Many within modern society seem to believe that all IP is born from giant corporations that must be fought against; rather than recognising that all new IP is the birth child of a single individual who must have some mechanism to earn a living.
Another crucial aspect is there is no mechanism to deliver the equity capital investment that is essential if the originator is to be able to develop their original thinking. The only source being, yes you have guessed it; the giant corporation.....
The total failure of the UK executive government, the Civil Service, to stand up and protect the individual rights holder, is well represented in the ongoing indifference of the UK IPO. One only needs to remember Tony Blair telling everyone that his government was absolutely against "Individualism" to get an idea of the negative mindset inside Whitehall. Then add how the MOD nowadays will only deal with one supplier and we can see that a Parliamentary committee is very unlikely to be able to deliver any real change.
Until the UK economy completely collapses, (not that I wish such), I suspect no one will listen to anything a single inventor has to say; but for the record, the very first thing to do is close down several departments and retire the top 10 levels of the Civil Service. THEN we just might have a half chance of renewing past success as a manufacturing nation based upon Intellectual Property.
My problem is the funding for this 100 year space ship is provided by the utter idiots that are also developing a device to deliver a bomb to any point on the surface of this planet within an hour. People with that mindset should not be anywhere near ANY form of long term peaceful development of space technology.
And I do indeed mean it when I say; Utter Idiots.
For that reason, I will not associate myself in any way with the 100 year space ship program.
We need to find a way forward with long term space ship development that has, right at the heart of the operation; the peaceful development of space travel.
There are two separate "lines of evolution" of the genus Homo Sapiens, not one. Why do I say that? Because I, (and many around me here in the South of England), have a VERY distinct ridge of bone running from front to back down the centre of my skull; whereas others have a totally rounded, like an eggshell, skull form.
In the past, I was told my skull shape was caused by the manner of my birth and that it was due to the way the plates of my skull fused after birth. Now I have come to the conclusion that the whole idea of defining a different skull shape as a different genus became impossible due to the stupidities from WW2 NAZI experiments. Another reason being, (and you can easily try this for yourselves), that people seem to find it VERY difficult to feel the top of another individuals skull.
Be that as it may, considering the strength of the real difference between my skull shape and structure, to that of others with a totally smooth, rounded skull; I am convinced that I must be from a different line of evolution to the other skull form.
Again, my father is listed in Salt Lake City as a member of a family that "Lives to a great age", so, while I am 68 years old, I am also very fit and agile and thus expect to live to that great age. Oh! and he is also listed as a direct descendant of Princess Pocahontas; which makes me a Pow tan Red Indian Prince many times removed. :)
In which case, there is much more to learn that that presently posited.
Simply, why not also reach the conclusion that it is the temperature of the atmosphere that controls the quantity of cosmic radiation detected?
Without any corroborating evidence; it is entirely possible that we might conclude that the temperature controls the data, rather than radiation controls.
Having designed a Freeze Drying Microscope taking samples down to -100C I can tell you from direct experience, the problem they face is ice. It is quite amazing just how much moisture there is in air. Moisture that will, instantly, turn into ice. Remember, when aircraft engines were first created, they had to fit heaters to their engine intakes to melt the ice as it formed..... or the engine would promptly fail.
They make no mention of what they are going to do about the ice that will, inevitably, coat the entire cooler system. Ice is their Achilles heel.
"Europe lost its last global technology platform. "
Perhaps it will take the endgame of the long term demise of NOKIA to bring everyone to recognise; that the real failure in Europe, is the idea that all long term development, (and by association, government grant support), for new technology; must always be into existing large companies.
This saga is a classic demonstration of what you get, in the end, from a lack of competition. Instead of many new, small businesses, snapping at the heels of the likes of NOKIA, (and, moreover, in the right place to immediately take up the running as a market leader), you get stagnated management, unable to see the potential from their magnificent gold plated "offices".
Europe desperately needs a functioning system to feed new, free enterprise based, equity capital; into new small businesses, right at the grass roots of every nation. Until the EU recognises that need, all we are going to see is the same story, again and again.........
Considering that, with the help of Dr. Alan Jefferson, I became one of the "Honourable Mentions" for the Tour Eiffel de la Space Competition, in 1986, celebrating the Centenary of the design and construction of the Eiffel Tower, with our entry for The Space Chronometer; an hour minute and second hand in space to give Greenwich Mean Time to all humanity; one might be forgiven for asking why has it taken so long to try out such structures? And such a feeble one at that....
Our own was for three separate hands, hour, minute and second; 9Km, 6Km and 3Km in length, a control module at the centre of each hand and the same length cable, 9Km, 6Km, and 3Km to the other end to balance the rotation with each hand having a satellite at each end to drive their rotation. The rotation holding the hands out straight with the design being limited by the once every 60 seconds rotation of the 3Km long second hand on one side and the 3Km long cable balancing on the other, rotating around the central control module. Each hand a quite separate entity, each one behind the other to form a single clock face.
The whole providing an 18Km diameter "Clock in Space".
It is clear that those of you that slam the idea of keeping a steam catapult have no experience of sea water around anything electrical. Add to that the sea slamming into the electrical equipment in that slot in the flexing deck in a force ten storm and remember, it MUST work 24/7/365.
It is one thing to launch an aircraft from a dry desert airstrip and quite another at sea in a ship that flexes while being awash with zillions of gallons of violently agitated sea water. Another point to make is that, with anything new, you let someone else try it out first so that they can put up with all the unexpected problems, so we are going to be the fall guys.
Again, a decent sized warship has a complement of, say, a thousand, now compute their fresh water requirements.......... You need a fresh water system whether you like it or not.
To specify an aircraft carrier without an aircraft was bad enough, but without steam catapults is, IMHO utter stupidity. But then, I am a fool until the day there is a small flash and a puff of smoke and the lights all go out......... Steam has a very long history in ships for the very simple reason, it is very reliable. You aircraft carrier is a useless pile of scrap if you cannot launch the aircraft at the exact moment you need to. Add to that the requirements for the defence of the carrier fleet and you end up with more than one type of aircraft to be launched.
To specify without any prior experience to back up the decision, on something of such primary importance as your flagship is, to the defence of the nation; is irresponsible to say the least.
I stick to my previous statement.and leave the matter to the history of the Royal Navy.
All ships have what are known as Live Steam systems. heating, cooking, and with aircraft carriers, catapults. It is easily provisioned and is very reliable, having been in use since WW2. So now we know the reason why the ships were not provided with steam catapults, the contractors knew there was a new electromagnetic catapult in the pipeline.
This just another example of the poor quality of the MoD Civil Servants. They have been hoodwinked into a strategy that tries to force us to buy the new technology.
Just to remind everyone of the old technology, it is a simple tube with a split along its length with an internal flap, originally made of leather. Inside the tube is a piston with a flange on its side to fit within the slit in such a manner that, as the piston is forced by live steam down the tube, the flap slides around the flange and maintains a seal. So the old technology is THAT simple and works VERY reliably. VERY Cheap, reliable, simple, well understood.
There is not one single reason for abandoning the steam catapult.
This is outrageous.
The Mod should immediately institute a design change to the carrier specification to include steam catapults and fire the civil servants that were implicit in the failure to include them in the first place.
Some time ago, a US inventor, in dispute with Motorola over their assumed patent rights attended a meeting between his attorney and the Motorola legal team in Chicago. During that meeting, (I was told), one of the the Motorola attorneys said something to the effect: "Your patent is worthless; this is an example of a good patent" and promptly tossed one of my US patents onto the table. Which is how I heard about the incident as they then approached me.
My patents? 5,712,679; 6,181,373; 6,469,735
Perhaps they should worry about me instead?
Perhaps they need an English inventor to suggest that they add a camera to the booster nose and then when they release the hypersonic glider, they then follow the glider down while visually recording the flight. In that way they would also have secondary confirmation of what they are recording from the glider's on-board systems. If they had done that, they would have seen what happened. There, job done by an Englishman.
These proposals from government are not designed to improve the circumstances of research, but are instead designed to improve the income of the government. If the government could, it would not fund anything at all. Furthermore, the primary role of government is surely to create law. Parliament's function is as a law maker for the nation. What has happened is that, to create new employment within the Civil Service, the servants, sic!, saw the opportunity to increase both their power over the nation and create new employment for themselves by getting involved as the originators of research and development. History shows us again and again, that if we do come up with something new and useful, they are so concerned to create income for themselves, the last thing they are going to do is go on supporting the work already initiated. How many successes have been sold on? The recent TV series describing the development of our hydrogen bomb, related bomber aircraft and the early rockets are an excellent example. Again and again, they sell off rather than support. So to come out now and say they are looking for new research to become more economic minded is another way of saying that they are in desperate need for more income to pay for their wages and pensions..... and they do not care a single jot as to how they get their hands on it. The great mistake has been to allow government to become involved in the first place. Why is there no mention of our savings institutions funding such? What are the savings of the nation doing being swilled around markets with a single purpose of creating income for the financial institutions? Take another look, they create immense income for, yes, you have guessed it, government. I have recently set into motion a debate using a free PDF book; The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. In it I suggest that the rules for a true free market economy should be:
To create a true free market, capital based, local economy, with as much competition between the many suppliers to the local economy as possible; only requires we accept four primary rules: 1. Only the job creator makes the decision to create a new job. 2. They receive adequate Equity Capital by abiding to strict, but open rules that leave them in complete control of their new business. 3. Local savings are invested, as equity capital, back into the local community to provide the required capital to create the new jobs. 4. All transactions are made to the rules of a free market. It really is as simple as that.
If you go read the book, you will see that you can have every form of research paid for by the investment of the savings of the nation and without a single penny of taxation being spent. Until we create an economy that is more financially successful OUTSIDE of government so that the government returns to its primary function of creating law, the civil servants will continue to try every possible means to increase their income at your expense.
As I see it, they can only sell that to which they own the rights. It is my understanding that certain patent rights, (which may, or of course, may not, impinge upon some of their geographic markets), are going to be auctioned in Hong Kong next June. If indeed that turns out to be correct, they should worry about that as surely they would not wish to become a hostage to the fortunes of, say, a new upstart Chinese or Indian wireless phone manufacturer; would they?
By pure chance I came across this web page about Buckminster Fuller with this statement.
"How can they justify large research and development budgets for next year if it were visible that the original technical gains were accruing exclusively to society from the individual preoccupations and initiatives existing entirely outside of massive government and massive corporate manufacture and distribution? The self-deceit of democracy at this moment in history by its professionally advertised aggrandisement of the "corporate image" with reputed impeccability of super-inventiveness may be the undoing of democracy's case until another century has washed away this miasmic fallacy. Not only have these professional word- and picture-factories manufactured the greatest and most persuasively erroneous myths, but they also have robbed our heritage of word- and picture-language of its incisively exquisite effectiveness."
In 2002 I got to speak to a European Commissioner who told me that it is nowadays impossible to gain funding as an individual. The end result is that we get these sort of totally ridiculous proposals and they get funded. Dreadful waste of money.
They would see a tall British inventor, me, some years ago now, walk through their front door in Cupertino and leave an envelope with details of three US patents and one Japanese patent describing a full system, not just the hand held. I am told that, as a public company, they have to place to one side sufficient funds to cover any possible claim on such potential infringement.
I look forward to hearing from them in due course.
The originating inventor of social mapping was myself with a UK patent application dated 16th January 1989 culminating in three US patents 5,712,679; 6,181,373; 6,469,735 and one Japanese patent; 2896930. But I could never find funding, (A VERY long story). The first corporate use of social mapping was by Epson, in the shape of the Seiko-Epson LOCATIO system that, I am told by my Japanese Patent Agent, they abandoned upon the grant of my Japanese patent. But by then they were about a decade behind me, but with massive investment. Something I could never receive being in the UK where the idea of someone, anyone, having a new idea worth long term investment was, as today, laughed at.......... I have taken this from the Epson web site.
"Remarkably, the GPS semiconductor technology used in all the handsets was supplied by one company: Epson. To date, Epson has shipped more than 10 million of the GPS devices to manufacturers of 3G handsets.
"We were thrilled with this major design-in win," says Yutaka Kitazawa, General Manager of Epson's GPS Business Development Department. "It was a reward for a decade of pioneering research and development."
After Epson established the GPS business unit in 1995, Kitazawa's group came up with idea of creating a multifunction handheld device comprising a personal digital assistant or PDA, digital camera, mobile phone, and GPS that would work on low power. Dubbed the Locatio, the device was launched in 1998 together with both an e-mail service and a mapping service aimed at making the GPS technology more useful. "It was a revolutionary device," says Kitazawa. "Unfortunately, it was ahead of its time for most consumers. Still, we learned a lot from the experience."
The reality is that NOKIA are about twenty years behind the curve and do not own all the rights to which they are now addressing their efforts.
My experience of a fast car was to briefly own an E-Type 4.2L Roadster. The problem is that any "nice" girl will take a look and naturally assume that you are "fast" and I have to report that my personal life was much better when I drove an Austin 7 Ruby. When the fast car goes, the fast woman goes as well. Stick to a small car with class and win the heart of a nice girl. better by far than an imaginary "win" of someone that moves on as the success declines.
Earlier this year my old PC was hacked into so strongly that it completely collapsed with an unrecoverable system. I bought a new hard disc and re-installed my legitimate copy of XP Pro with my legitimate copy of Office XP Pro only to find that the system has automatically upgraded me to SP3 which interestingly removes all access to the upgrade system and now my office documents, while they still look OK on screen, but when I print, or convert to PDF and print, they now have a weird variation in the text when printed, making them unusable.
I am sure that some smart arse has come up with this as a great idea to force us to upgrade to new software. (Or the system has assumed I am no longer legitimate).
But this is like taking your old car in for a service and someone in the garage has decided that you cannot have your old car back in working order, or, that when you get in to drive, it wanders all over the road and if you go back they just scrug and walk away.
Imagine having an old, vintage car; and the dealer has decided that you can never drive it again. This attitude is exactly the same.
Ultimate market power corrupts in the same way as any other monopoly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and this is an excellent example. But as I said in my earlier comment, we can and will walk away from such indifference. In my case, as soon as I can afford to. With regard to Apple the price is acceptable because the ongoing service from Apple has a clear track record of creating product that is a satisfying experience for the customer.
Competition, free markets; are all about choice. Treat otherwise loyal customers with indifference and sooner or later, all of them will simply walk away.
I most certainly will, I am sure many many others are about to follow.
In turn I expect Apple to treat me with respect when I am older and own older software, just like an old car owner who cannot afford to buy a new car, I expect them to continue to treat me with the respect I am due as a loyal customer to their product.
Without that respect, we will always walk away.
Microsoft created an operating system that was redesigned; I reckon around about the 1986/87 period to seek out information on behalf of a great many organisations, not all of them benign or commercial. I suspect that, at its height, it has been a great success for some of those "organisations" but which had the downside of making it wide open to hackers too. In trying to keep collecting information while trying to keep out hackers, they created the worst of all worlds, a system that they had to keep running while at the same time, were trying to fend off criticism by trying to show they were committed to making the system hacker proof.
Ergo, we became, as users, attached to an unending stream of updates... start up, update, turn off, start machine, update... while all the time the information gathering capabilities made our PC slower and slower. Add to that we cannot see any of what is being collected. Have no idea of who is reading what or where. That once the "cat" was out of the bag, and the hackers themselves were then employed by commercial organisations to allow the commercial world the same information gathering capabilities as the "organisations" and the whole thing has arrived at a point so far away from a normal commercial product sold for the advantage of the customer that the customer has at last realised the continuing stupidity of all of this.
I first got an understanding of the unseen capabilities when my desktop turned completely Japanese one day. And on another day, someone ran a sound WAV file that was someone walking with hard shoes on a wood floor walking across the room, opening the door and closing it behind them, clunk! Whoever it was, was a real show off, but left me absolutely certain that there is no way we can keep anyone out of our machines.
Microsoft has destroyed its market. Or, should I say instead, the "organisations" requests for information gathering capabilities were, inevitably, sooner or later, going to override any commercial sense of what a product should provide a customer. We in turn have come to realise we can all walk a way.
I do hope, for all our sakes that Apple has had the good sense not to follow the siren calls from those "organisations" but then again, we may never know the truth anyway. We have to rely on the commercial sense of Steve Jobs. So as a final point, may I hereby ask Steve Jobs to make a public statement that there are no similar "subsystems" in OSX designed to gather similar "information".
They have made a VERY big mistake. They never seemed to have thought they would sit on a thin surface of dust covering a frozen ocean. If you have ever had any experience of freeze drying, you would know that ice sublimates. It freely turns from a solid to a mixture of gas molecules and water vapour. So the surface they are standing on is a sort of mush ice mixed with dust. When they dig into it, it is thus not unlike mud, (as a previous post has also alluded).
Remember, they are not in a high vacuum as with a freeze dryer, they are in a low pressure atmosphere which is still sufficient to create dust devils.
They needed to be able to remove the screens, but I would guess, they cannot. Thus always, the mush ice will inevitably have to dry out before it arrives in the oven. So someone came up with the idea that all they would want to observe was tiny particles and all the others, sic! never once took their device into a chamber with a frozen tank of water covered with a thin layer of dust that had been standing for say, at least a year to gain the full effect and asked the simple question; what if?
Now we will have to wait for Pioneer 2, what, perhaps another 10 years, before we get true readings of the water content of the material BEFORE entry to the oven. If they had just one single artisan, rather than all academics on their team, they might have spotted their simple, but disastrous mistake.
So the FIRST thing that must be done is to simulate the REAL dust environment on the surface under the spacecraft. (Which is now NOT a space craft, but an Earth ship on a dust covered frozen Martian ocean. And, remember, now that the ship is on the surface, it will act as a sun trap and heat the surface under the ship. So any possible solution must come ASAP, before the depth of the dust level increases as the increased heat levels sublime more of the under surface ice. But is so sad they never thought about the implications of a frozen surface covered with a thin layer of dust. They must have assumed that the surface was all dust and they would only find a very slight indication of water. If only they had assumed all scenarios, they would have had at least one oven without a screen.
All the MOD needs to do, is fit standard aircraft instruments and fly the Chinooks. If all the problem was, was that they were not cleared to fly on instruments, then a standard set of artificial horizon and related instruments out of a civilian aircraft would have done the job for what? 10K per aircraft?
They are simply recognising that from now onwards, they will have competition. Dan K, do not go near them, they want you back on board to STOP you from competing. Simple as that. Go for it Dan, set up a Brazilian competitor and give us what we need, a company centred upon the needs of the customer.
NOKIA would have every right to make such a purchase of any mapping service provider if it owned the intellectual property rights to transmitting an electronic camera image, taken with the wireless telephones electronic camera, which is then combined with navigation details, provided by the internal navigation system, (common to some of their wireless telephones), to another location where the image could be shown alongside the location of the image on a map. Again, it could make such a purchase if the mapping service provider perhaps also owned such Intellectual Property. In such a case, the European Commission could not refuse such a merger as it would impinge upon the rights of the Intellectual Property. However, surely, without such patent protection, the EU is surely correct to prevent such uncompetitive mergers that suppress external competition by the owners of the Intellectual Property? So the question to ask NOKIA and Navteq Corp is - do the companies own such patent rights?
Competition between many suppliers is the only way to address the problems of such equipment. The overall problem is that we do not promote enough competition for the supply.
Without competition you do not have any chance of ever getting the best solution for the needs of the soldier on the ground.
Creating steam is the easiest thing to do. Our ancestors were doing that from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Secondly, the steam catapult is VERY
reliable and simple. Suggesting that the space is there for an untried electromagnetic solution that would give out the most amazingly "LOUD" signals as to the location of the carrier, both into the air and the water every time it was used has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard. If they cannot afford a water tank, a water heater, some pipes and a few valves, then they signal they have no idea how to use the money they have available and have no way to fall back on any other existing aircraft type if they run into trouble with their supply of aircraft for the ships.
This is another example of the long term failure of the idea that by combining all suppliers into one single entity you save costs. Instead, you have one supplier that raises costs to such a level we have only one obsolete aircraft, (the latest USAF fighters are decades ahead our our one), with the same supplier of the ships and no money for proper equipment for the ships.
The United Kingdom once had unrivalled aircraft and ship building industries with many competitive suppliers and a wide range of different solutions to our defence needs. You do not have competitive supply of anything without at least three separate competing suppliers. You do not have a free market place or a free nation without a fully competitive industrial base to stand the nation upon.
This is perhaps the start of a new period of thinking by government. Yes, there are far too many pages of repeated paragraphs and certainly the greater part of the paper is devoted to either large company or large government departmental thinking. But at the heart is the same old story that, decades on, has still not been addressed, the lack of funding at the £250,000 to £2 million level. None of the previous government strategies has succeeded to address this problem.
But what surprised me more than anything was that the individual is not considered to play any real part in innovation. I quote: " Most new ideas do not come as a flash of inspiration to a lone genius inventor; they come from how people create, combine and share their ideas". This thinking goes right back to the 1960's when some bod made the exact same comment and, in my humble opinion, set the idea into stone that no single individual can succeed at innovation. I will put to one side the idea that we now read each others minds like ants and do not need to think as an individual, "we all thought of it at once sir" is surely something out of a communist user manual?
There is nothing about competition; let alone the idea that the driver of innovation is to compete against any existing supplier. That omission shows that there is no understanding of the role of competition in society. But the greatest failure is there is no delivery of new capital on free enterprise terms to the start-up. The idea that a £3,000 voucher will somehow mean that, immediately afterwards, somehow, the capital to pay for all of these additional work OUTSIDE of the local university. I have taken this from "A Capital Spillway Trust":
"I now turn to the particular difficulties presented to the individual inventor when they set out to create new jobs through the application of new thinking embedded in a patent application for a completely new product or process.
But when we turn to inventions of what are completely new products, then we must allow for the time it takes for the full process of development of:
1. the initial ideas, registration and procurement of patent protection,
2. manufacture of initial prototype,
3. design and manufacture of working first stage marketable models,
4. professional evaluation of marketability,
5. re-evaluation of design,
6. world patent applications
7. and subsequent office actions to secure the same,
8. organising and evaluating a basic sales structure,
9. final design for perceived market
10. and ramping up production for the first sales,
11. setting up and paying for the necessary advertising and marketing campaign
12. and finally assembling the team of people that will serve to take up this challenge of a completely new product and taking it to market.
This process takes many years and much investment to complete. For a full free enterprise marketplace to exist, this process must be completed outside of existing industry so that a fully competitive national industrial base is achieved and maintained. To do that you must have completely new businesses coming forward on a regular basis to compete with the existing suppliers to a market, any market. You must replace old businesses with new businesses and old technology with new technology. Defunct products beyond their initial lifespan must be replaced with the best you can turn out. You must have full and completely free competition.
As things stand, the lone inventor is expected to either fund these costs themselves, which is effectively impossible or, to raise funds from a venture capital group that will marginalise them to gain complete control of the start up with the aim to sell on the resulting business to the largest business in that industry within three to five years or, again, the inventor will have to turn to an existing business to fund it. Thus from the outset, the inventor cannot build up a completely new competitive business. This is an important aspect as you therefore do not have a full and free marketplace and thus always, without change, existing customers, including governments, will never be able to see fully competitive supply to a free market."
Sadly this paper does not address any of these first stages with any solution that overcomes their own perception of the first stage failure to provide funding. The £3,000 voucher is, quite frankly, a joke, (with the greatest of respects), as any innovator worth their salt already knows full well that the university is under funded, never has all their own internal research projects fully funded and has the same difficulties as the external innovator in sourcing those crucial first stage funds.
They simply do not exist.
As for the longer term funding of new industry. I ask the minister to go ask ANY "financial adviser" where anyone can get LONG TERM equity Capital. He will find it also does not exist.
There is much to be done to bring the UK government up to speed with shortfalls that were identified decades ago. That is the primary problem to be overcome. This paper does not address those needs.
None of the respondents have so far seen the obverse side of this. At the moment, if someone lets off an explosion, or fires a bullet at you, you have some chance of survival. But this form of weapon will do exactly what the old science fiction movies depict. A quick squirt of energy and you are nothing but a pile of ash on the ground. Again, you live fifty miles from a war zone and are outside when a sudden flash of light, reflected off anything, permanently blinds you and everyone else with you.
This is not a toy, but a VERY destructive new development that will have a very long range and whose laser beam can move, say, at a distance of ten miles from the source, (while sweeping across the horizon, remember your light beam from a torch), at a speed of several hundred miles per hour. At this moment, we begin to see the beginnings of an era when, if you are going to go to war, the last thing you will want on the battlefield is human beings; they will be too vulnerable. Once that is realised, then war becomes something between automatic robot armies and THEN the whole human race is at a distinct disadvantage.
The whole basis of the Terminator movie series was that, once we reach that point, we become the ultimate target of these robots.
Today, now, this year, this century, we have reached that point in time.
THINK ABOUT THAT? This is not a joke. This is deadly serious.
Anyone with a bit of savvy can work out how something works that they have in their hands and can take to pieces. So the reference to Cisco in China is an illusion. The Chinese will be able to take control of every single bit of the Cisco gear if they need to. We need to worry about lack of investment in the new, not that which has already been sold.
By the far the greatest threat to Western National security today is that an inventor does not have access to confirmed, long term investors that use only our own national funds from reliable sources of national capital. All M&A as well as their prequels, the VC's, source capital from any source available. Particularly Sovereign Investment Funds from other countries. The investment community has been, for many decades now, locked into the cycle of take control of any invention so that it can be rolled forward as fast as possible into an M&A. To achieve that demanded the creation of a cycle of refusal to invest for the long term, allied to any port of call for the invention, just as long as the VC can get out fast and profitably and the M&A community can sell it into a large corporation. In fact, it has been precisely this that has driven the creation of the unstable financial condition of these "trading banks" who have used any means, to create vapour-ware funds to keep the whole thing going.
Yes, on the one hand the chickens have come home to roost, financially, but no one today in any form of government has any idea just how difficult it is to raise capital for a new invention where the criteria are a long term commitment to the inventor and his vision for the future of his or her company. Such capital simply does not exist. Every high street is full to the brim with shops selling mortgages for a house. I know of no single shop anywhere in the United Kingdom where I can walk in and get access to such capital from a national source. Let alone that is reliable, has a long term track record to a firm commitment to see me yes, me, that silly irascible individual, the inventor safely capitalised for the long term development of his business vision. Not to make too fine a point of this, I repeat, such capital simply does not exist..
This very week, I am faced with the reality that the best thing I can do with my inventions is to got to another countries Sovereign Investment Fund and ask for investment. The UK , unlike, say, Norway, does not have one. We squandered North Sea Oil for what? Massive buildings full of civil servants playing musical chairs desperately trying to cover up that they have nothing to do. But ask them to help a British inventor and they all throw up their hands in amazement and show you the door..... That is by the far the greatest threat to the long term future of our national intellectual property base. And, who cares?
Certainly not the United Kingdom Government.
This is very sad news. But I do wonder if the problem is entirely caused by the fact that even the major banks are not in any position to lend to each other due to the ongoing problems within the credit markets. In that case, it will only be the major companies, (for example, Google), that have full access to their own finances that will be able to bid for the spectrum. That was why we have not entered the 700MHz auction ourselves. The FCC knew all along that their method of running the auction would inevitably discourage smaller companies from bidding. But with the lock up of the credit markets, the auction is an impossible target for all but a very few, very large businesses.
"or buy guns to overthrow China's non-democratic government, then it is bad"
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that I do not believe it makes any sense, anywhere on the planet, to try and overthrow a government by force.
Secondly and in my humble opinion, much more importantly, we should all recognise that it is strong debate, in words and by writing, on blog sites such as this, that do more for the future of freedom world wide than any threat of violence.
Finally, I believe that the Chinese people will, in time, peacefully, return to their classical roots of a vibrant culture based upon Confusion principles. That in turn will lead to freedom for their people, debate and peaceful co-existence with the rest of the planet.
Underneath the short term heel of corrupt communism, (a blink of the eye compared to their long history), they are a very cultured people and when they return to their classic origins, they will prove worthy companions for the rest of us here on this small planet.
Back in the late 1960's early 1970's one would come across individuals from the old DTI, (Department of Trade and Industry) that called themselves "Industrialists" because their boss, the UK government, owned large portions of what had been thriving industries in private hands that had, by then, become moribund and bloated by social employment created by these self same "industrialists". All sorts of schemes were floated to improve the competitiveness of the industries they "owned". One such involved a man called Stokes whose job was to bring all the disparate parts of the UK motor industry into one company to, yes, you have guessed it, "promote".......... In the end, it all came to nothing, the whole idea proved to be impossible to do within any government structure and Stokes became Lord Stokes and our once world beating motor industry..... evaporated. So all we are seeing here is a repeat of the same old story. The Civil Service do not trust private individuals or small privately owned business. I suspect that derives from their own difficulties with dealing with private sub contractors. You may have noticed Tony Blair once used to proclaim against "Individualism". Back in the 1970's the head of the Inland Revenue once openly stated in a speech that "The self employed are the scum that floats upon the surface of society".
So here we have our national government unable to even conceive that a private business could promote itself and needs their help. Why would they think that? What was it that started them thinking that private industry would need government help? With the greatest of respects to Lord Digby Jones, I ask him to please explain to us here on The Register how this exercise has come about and who thought of it and to tell us if the governemnt was approached by private industry or was this an idea floated by large public company suppliers to the governments internal "industrialists"?
I am not trying to appear negative. I am trying to form a debate that will prevent the repeat of previous failed exercises. Moreover exercises that led, in the end, to the collapse of whole sectors of British Industry.
The Register has shown, with their masterful snatch of the governments URL, the capacity of the free minded individual to move very quickly indeed to fill a need. What has been missing for decades now has been a source of Free Enterprise based funding for those self same "individuals" from the capital base of the nation..... that left them free....... to compete against the largest companies.
It is not new government inspired "exercises" we need, it is simply better access to free market capital to get on and do what we are already very good at, given the chance to succeed.
The nations success comes from masterful action by small groups of individuals demonstrating verve and imagination. We need a capital base that supports that, not a return to government inspired intervention that eventually suppresses innovation in the long term interest of the largest companies, who are in turn keen to suppress the expansion of those smaller individualistic businesses that would otherwise be able to bid for the governments business. And why would I say that? I will bet my right arm that the costs of meeting the requirements to become "eligible" for support under the rules of the exercise being contemplated will make it impossible for the smaller innovative companies to even get through the door in the first place.
With the greatest of respects Lord Digby Jones, you are a large public business, large government person and you have just been left in a cloud of dust by a classic "Turbinia" style action by The Register. You need to learn to trust the imaginations of all those individuals that, given the chance and access to the free enterprise capital they need to compete, would lead the way forward to new success for the nation, but in competition against the interest of all the largest public companies that today you appear to ..........represent......?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019