The Cost of Free Energy

The True Cost of Free Energy

A free energy watercar is extremely probable, due to the massive amount of examination examples have received from the US military, NASA, and by the examination and proliferation of HHO and hydrogen gas water engines, many with nationally registered patents by independent scientists in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, the Philipines, and other "100%+" efficiency inventions. For example, in spring 2002, a patent was issued for a motionless electromagnetic generator producing some 100 times the power put into it. Japanese patents for electromagnetic devices and other engines producing 100%+ energy are also 'common'.

These items are not fantasy and do not draw energy from nothing. Examine statements at www.timetravelisforsuckers.blogspot.com for detail on 'zero-point' energy devices. Some draw energy from the universal constant, an ambient energy level that is present everywhere, even in empty vacuums devoid of matter. Some use the entrainment principle of wave synchronization to force vibrational atomics to change chemical structure. This is the most likely explanation for water splitting, and would account for the precise hertz level the electrons must be moving at for the process to work. More inventions and explanations abound at www.byronwine.com.

So many wonder, if these remarkable devices exist, why isn't GM using them? Why isn't the USGOV using them? The answers are the choices of certain key shareholders and officers, but we can speculate their motivations.

Oil experts estimate that there are "100 trillion dollars worth of oil" [$100T] underground right now, with the greatest collection in the hands of Saudi Arabia, followed by Iraq. This is a ridiculously large sum that can drive entire economies, the entire world economy, and change the history of mankind and isolate power at key bottlenecks. If there is an 'oil monopoly', and cars run only [95%+] on oil, then only those who control oil will have substantial automotive power. This plays a massive force in world commerce. More powerful than supply alone, price sets levels of domination, basically a Seringhetti pecking order, and can be used to track money movements and used as currency and payments. For example, the US NAVY was able to track every tanker than left Iraq. >50% of oil smuggled from Iraq during 1991-2003 went to a US company in Texas.

Oil Reserves: $100 Trillion
This does not count coal, uranium, or natural gas, which are also very highly valued.

This also does not include the hundreds of oil refineries found worldwide. Russia has hundreds, America has hundreds, Europe has plenty, the Middle East has hundreds, Asia has probably hundreds of them. A 'refinery' is not a SimCity 16-square sized building. Some of them take up entire SimCity sized maps, encompassing multi-square-kilometer facilities. These facilities could be themselves valued collectively at perhaps $2 trillion dollars.

Oil Refineries: $2 Trillion

Free energy devices, usually producing no immediately meaningful pollution, would also immediately replace all non-free power plant facilities. This means that all nuclear plants, and the world has over 400 operational nuclear reactors, with many plants having up to 4 reactors or more at a plant, with dozens of nations from Uruguay to Malaysia having plants. There are also hundreds of research plants, fuel processing facilities, refining plants, and uranium mines and their industries. China plans to open 2 new plants per year until 2020, according to the 2004 GE symposium. Note that Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida was hit by Hurricane Andrew and shut down, while Three Mile Island and Chernobyl both had nuclear accidents, and both plants attempted to conceal the news!

A nuclear plant is 1:1.3 efficient, about 23%, and each KW capacity costs around $3200. This would make a 650MW plant cost a hair over 2 billion dollars. The world's collective energy production nuclear power plants probably cost in the vicinity of 800 billion dollars. The average nuclear power plant is not profitable until its 17th year of operation because of energy costs. The majority of nuclear plants are owned by private companies.

Geothermal energy could replace this cost without polluting, and could potentially decrease volcanic and earthquake activity. The majority of earth's caloric heat comes from earth, not from the sun. Geothermal energy is also $~2800/KW capacity, beating nuclear by a fair margin and producing no meaningful pollution.

Add onto this the world's coal plants. According to this site, 54% of American energy comes from coal power. We have 600 coal power plants in America, which produce more radiation from carbon isotopes, than nuclear plants produce in pure radiation, although nuclear waste is highly concentrated, and nuclear plants purposefully release radiation into the environment on a biweekly basis. According to wiki, a 500MW plant costs $650 million, and we have some 600 of them. As of 2004, a coal plant cost $1300/KW capacity. These plants and their background mines and refineries add up to $390 billion. They are all infrastructure, and free energy would turn their value to $0. Assuming that other nations combined have only about equally as many coal plants as America has, plus $20 billion in infrastructure, the total springs to $800 billion.

Alternative energy projects such as wind and solar plants would also likely become illusions. It is more probable, given the assumably probable existance of sufficient alternative energy technology, that wind and solar power are entirely red herrings, and designed to down-market non-oil power sources, and distract those who would search for alternatives with the 'likely competetors'. Yes, solar and wind power suck and cannot meaningfully replace oil or coal or nuclear power at their current production levels and our current demand. They will still be useful for low-draw operations.
World Coal and Nuke power plants: $1.6 Trillion

Then consider our automotive industries and oil companies and their factories and all cars on the road. As of Y2K, 51 of the 100 largest economic entities were corporations, not nations. In 2000 GM had a net worth of $176 billion dollars, ranking #23, just behind the nation of Turkey, and beating out the whole country of Denmark, with a $174 billion economy. Exxon-Mobil was #26 with $163 billion. Ford Motor was #27 also at 163 billion, and Daimler Chrystler was #28 at $160 billion. Poland was #29 at $154 billion. Mitsubishi and Toyota are #38 and #39 with $117 and $116 billion each. Royal Dutch is #43 with $105 billion. Israel is #46 with about $100 billion. BP is #56 at 83 billion, Volkswagen is #58 with 80 billion, and from there it becomes loose change with Honda and Nissan ranking #78 and #80 pulling in ~55 billion each. Also on this list are Boeing, Deutsche Bank, State Farm Insurance, Bangladesh, Fiat -#85, 51 billion, Toshiba, Siemens, and Mexico, which has an economy about as large as America's annual debt of $~500B. America's GDP in 2000 was ~8.7 trillion dollars. Today it is something like $13 trillion, but in American dollars, which is about equal to 8.7 trillion USD2000.

These figures are for the year 2000. Since then these companies have all grown at a rate of perhaps 4% per year, while the average salary has risen 0.3% per year for the past 25 years -NPR interview. Inflation defeats this salary increase. Cost of living has also increased. The collected major oil company annual sales on this list were $350 billion dollars. Numerous smaller companies, such as Venezuela's state oil company, and other traders, were not on this list, and presumably would bring the total oil revenue to ~450 billion dollars, when oil cost about a buck a gallon. Remember gasoline cheaper than bottled water? The total number of car sales in the year 2000 for the major companies listed comes to $973 billion, with total world car sales probably leveling out at $1.1 trillion dollars, that year. The world spent $1.095 trillion on armies and weapons and wars in 2005, I believe. In the years since 2000, with these companies growing at 4% per year would place their total revenue for 2006 at around $1.9 T in 2005-6.

All oil companies and their affiliated gasoline stations would become $0 value in the event of water energy. All automotive companies would need to scrap the majority, let's call it 85%, of their factories and lineup processes. All carburaters and fuel injection systems would need to be retooled, all exhaust systems rendered worthless, and likely new fuel cell and other technology items spliced in their place. Please note that these companies often have subcontractors whom are not listed in their revenue tree.

Actually, it is likely that only about 85% of automotive company sales and efforts would be destroyed per year, until it becomes fiscally impossible to continue production. This would take about 1-2 years. A market for replacement parts could continue for 10-20 years.

Also note that all oil traded in the world comes in Dollars, not Euros, not Yen, not Yuan. This conversion process is very lucrative for Americans and dollar traders everywhere. One of the major concerns of Saddam Hussein's regime was that he wanted to trade in Euros for the first time in 2003, shortly before we invaded him. Other media recently [October 2006] says that he had issued statements that he would cooperate fully with American forces shortly before our invasion, but that George Bush refused to acknowledge these statements.
Automotive and Oil sales: $1.9 Trillion

All passenger and cargo and other jets would need to be refitted, again at 85% of fleets or more per year. Fortunately, we are approaching the era of hypersonic scramjets, which run on hydrogen fuel anyway. Most alternative combustion fuel production methods would just make this process easier. However, the aerospace industry is a multi-billion dollar economy, and Boeing was listed in 2000 asa #74 with $58 billion. It's major competetors, Airbus, and other world companies, and passenger jet companies, would face major losses to the measure of billions-touching-trillions. The American military receives nearly $500 billion annually and has hundreds of petroleum fuelled jets. NASA's rockets and all our ~500 football field sized ICBMs, other missiles, military hardware vehicles, and a majority of our nation's warships are also fuelled with petroleum products. Some of our warships are nuclear powered. They would face special challenges that might make replacing 85% of them or more annually difficult to agree with. I am not counting military expenses apart from the annual budget, only geopolitical tactical considerations.

Aerospace Industry and Jets: ~$2 trillion + military

This brings the grand total of loss of capital and expense for the introduction of alternative fuels to ~$107.5 trillion dollars, not counting accumulated coal, natural gas, and uranium resources. Also on this bill are the 1st world's supremecy, as no one anywhere in the world would ever want for electricity ever again, which could easily produce virtual economic autonomy everywhere. In the event of such economic exuberance, the American Federal Reserve would lose all control over the value of the dollar and all world currencies, companies would no longer be able to maintain their obsoleted patents, factories and industrial magnates would no longer be able to maintain natural monopolies from costs of production, since the cost of production would decrease so rapidly and far from "removing" the energy market basically in its entirety, any person with such a machine and a modest amount of capital could start any production facility they chose.

The value of the commodities that capital could buy would also be deflated preposterously because of the corresponding industrial explosion from eliminating the majority of the cost of energy-intensive production efforts. Heavy industrial efforts, such as producing carbon fiber, would become cheaper than producing steel. Automotive and generating engines using the new technologies would become as expensive as the cost of their natural resources, plus tooling, plus profit of 8-10%, and still cost a fraction of what they do today, in 2006, in terms of manhours of labor and dollars. Natural resource harvesting, of plentiful metals, minerals, lumber, hemp, crops, could all be accomplished using non-polluting, free-to-run-continuously-and-for-years engines that themselves would eventually be made using robots.

Robotics could easily flood the market with any level of goods of any type within years. Maintenance of automated industrial production would become the major time and labor consuming cost of indsutrial production. Entrepreneurship and competition would become pure in almost every field because of the reduction of business expenses and cost of living.

The political and economic upheaval of the process would almost certainly bankrupt Duke Energy, the IMF and World Bank, most automotive production companies who do not embrace the shift, most financial institutions who do not embrace massive currency chaos, deflation and adjustment, and likely some major retailers unless they shift tactics. Any company that stands in the way of this shift will be brushed aside eventually either by the grinding halt of peak oil, or by the amazing tide of free water energy. You have until ~2010 at the very latest.

The Kyoto Treaty will be meaningless, no company will be able to produce a sufficient amount of CO2 to pollute the world substantially. Major polluters will be put out of business by more efficient and cleaner technologies. These new technologies will probably allow us to easily research new ways to clean up wastes and toxins and new medical procedures to treat diseases. Unfortunately, and depending on the level of chaos, returning to this level of infrastructural articulation will probably take 5-10 years after these shifts, which will themselves probably take 5-10 years, beginning as soon as water technology breaks out industrially, or as soon as we invade Iran or another oil entity, or ~2008 when peak oil will otherwise arrive.

This will cost us $107.5 trillion imaginary dollars, which represent potential labor, which will be replaced by an economic and social utopia. Your strength will be meaningless in this economy. Only your skill will be worth rewarding. A dollar will not produce an ear of corn that no one tended to. An existing machine could shovel a ditch for zero net units of energy. You can only trade a dollar for labor. Natural resources all belong to the ground. The ground and we, who came from dust, belong to God.

><>

Corporations and The Individual

What is good for corporations is good for their investors and CEO/board. Reaganomics did not work, and the money did not 'trickle down'.

Examine the increase in class seperation opening in the 1980's. That is where the money went. Not to the lower or middle class.

The same can be said of corporations, except their pockets are infinitely deep for withholding sums in finance. You could just lower the interest rate on loans a % or two instead.

We've seen corporations get huge deals and tax breaks in the past 6 years. It has widened this gap moreso than any time since the 1920's, and perhaps even to the 1890's, before we used AntiTrust laws on those railroad robber barons and mega-industrialists.

We have also been using an agressive privatization version of capitalism that strips public welfare. Welfare like schools and hospitals, quality of living, cost of living, and median wage. All of these sectors have taken a beating.

Thanks For The App

"What if New York had its own currency? In a sense, it already does. Our dollar looks the same as the better-known U.S. version, but it doesn’t go nearly as far here as anywhere else. How much is it really worth? Based on a few scientifically imprecise calculations, a New York dollar would lag somewhere behind a Canadian buck. Here’s why:"

Thanks. Examine this article in relation to regional economics.

Finance and Labor

I am disappointed with republican and statewide attempts to eliminate medical coverage and pensions for seniors. These things are not only general duties of the state, but they have been sworn to when they took the money from them for insurance and FICA etc in the first place.

If the state removes that compensation, they will need to replace it with some other meaningful support. Perhaps excellent research into proteinology or stem cells, and support to hospitals and medical organizations and provision of statewide healthcare. Installing these procedures can save 16-20% right off the top, which would normally be profit for investors who can likely afford their own healthcare.

In American capitalism that becomes private profit. In European and Canadian capitalism, those services are not private sector, they are provided by the state, and no 'profit' is made. Healthcare costs for all are abated, and taxes rise a few percent to pay for it. Currently [2004-5], healthcare costs the average American family something to the tune of $13,000 annually before work related compensation, which often takes it down to ~$8,500.

Is saving $13K worth even a 10% higher tax rate? Only if you make under $130K.

Furthermore, we have been shoveling much of this medical expense towards pill companies, who openly bribe doctors into prescribing their pills. If we spent money and grants on corrective medicine instead of throwing pills at it, we could do a better job of solving the problem at the root. Research a pill or process to change the way your body makes that chemical reactor, instead of supplementing the chemical reactor.

Companies making huge money on the IMF, oil funds and infrastructure, "big economy", big government, finance, and other fiascos will wreck this country and world within 3-5 years if nothing changes. The Federal Reserve has predicted a 60% likely chance of a major currency crisis in the next 3-5 years. Allen Greenspan has predicted a 70% chance of an American economic crisis in the next 3 years.

I wonder what that 30-40% chance of being saved is? We seem to have the technology to fix these problems, and we have more liquid capital than at most points in history, and the public is more aware than ever, except perhaps the late 1960's, early 1970's. We could change in time, even with disasters in the pipeline, and improve the world for all.


===


Another matter, in an environment where oil is not cheaply producable, human labor will probably become less valuable, as it is supported and extended by oil power. We may all face a pay cut in the form of oil and commodity prices increasing rapidly. The solution here is not to scramble to acquire and supply resources, that will only increase global resource pressure and use more resources in the process.

The solution is to work leaner, not grander. We can do more with less, particularly in corporate environments at the top and in profit margin, in cost to consumers of certain services, and in infrastructure. New technology should be examined in energy, industry, medicine, and transportation which will allow us to be more effective with less material and expense.

Environment and Economy

I had come up with the environmental economic macroassociation on about October 28, 2006, but more pressing matters kept me from writing until now. I see economist.com has an October 30 spread on the topic.

They project about a 2/5 increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. I wonder, where will these gasses come from? Oil cannot be sustained to those measures. Coal cannot replace oil to that extent, and nuclear power relies heavily on oil power.

If we do not do something about oil yesterday [in 1995] we will face the decline of industrialized civilization. So it may be an open secret that we're heading for a major economic crisis in about 2007-2008-2009, to be preceeded and overlapped by an eventually global military upswing, if it is achievable politically.

This will also be considerable because the value of fiscal currency will likely become far more attached to commodity than its floating value. Regional value of commodities may become exaggeratedly more prevalent than the normal value of a currency. I would expect a rapid shift from liquid assets to commodity and perhaps real estate during this time, especially during war, multiplied by worldwide oil shortage.

What is my fiscal recommendation for such a situation. Leave your 401(k) and put it into something more solid. The stock market is going to be a massive sinkhole in the event of peak oil or a fiscal crisis, or any serious crisis, for which many are we headed. I would avoid the finance sector, as it is fluff and based on nothing. Precious metals and energy shares seem most viable for the old-world economy.

But a new world market will be born, or "no flesh will survive". Energy technology will advance dramatically and allow clean free energy to be produced anywhere for a low cost per kilowatt capacity. This will allow people to live in very low cost of living environments and likely deflate the economies of the most industrialized areas by ~75%. The resource-heavy reasons people went to war will become obsolete, and new society will be formed around the new mankind-sustaining technology. This should square up in the years of the crisis and after.

Brazil will not be making 700 billion tons of greenhouse gasses by 2025. They will be making about 32 billion tons, primarily from exhalation. If you extrapolate growth figures from 2000-2005 without considering advanced technology or resource shortage then you'll get exactly what you chart for, which will not happen.

I am also surprised that the economist is so politically minded, yet they describe long term economic statements without regard to volitility, peak oil, and the effects of environmentally mandated or publicly mandated industrial or political course-change.

5 Year American Economic Forecast

Is the environment sustainable? I am more concerned that natural resources or other means will run out before the economy 'runs out'. Sustainable is on a 5 year+ or longer term. Is our American economy sustainable on a 5 year term?

*Oil*, *debt*, and *instability* are the three main courses of this fiscal dinner. We're scheduled to hit peak oil still somewhere in 2008, it seems. Or the moment Iran is invaded, or in the event of a serious event somewhere in the oil-world.

Conversely, alternative fuels' breaking of the numerous 'natural' monopolies of the Western superstructure will cost what is estimated to be 'hundreds of trillions' of dollars in expenses and modernizations which are the solitary alternative to oil. We can begin switching to alternative fuels now and stretch out the estimates over the next ~3 years, or we can wait until peak oil and some level of q-100 to q-1000[+] years' crisis that will blank our entire economy and be on the level of the collapse of Rome.

Oil is a worldwide problem. We can handle that as a world. It is far more important than choosing a form of capitalism, which is not a blank check, and this change will dramatically affect the structure of the economy in the next 5 years.

Debt is a serious problem, and along with debt I will group social class fiscal differentiation. Alan Greenspan has placed a figure of 70% at a major fiscal crisis in the next 3 years. Coming into 2.5 years. The Federal Reserve has said a 60% risk of a major American currency crisis in the next 3-5 years. They make the currency.

Social differentiation has also become increasingly profound, and its effects on the *large* American economy have been ravaging. I liken it to termites. This has also been aided at the top by massive outsourcing and shifting industries to foreign countries. This benefits probably 100 people at the top very much, in that they get to rake $ off of Americans and 1st worlders while paying almost none to 3rd worlders.

This makes the elite business owners 1st class citizens, the average American a 2nd class citizen being stolen from [literally] and undersupplied, and the 3rd worlders are still on the bottom. How long can this last? It is and will continue to damage the whole American economy, and the world economy is also being affected.

This contributes greatly to instability, and reduces American ability to produce a high quality of life. When quality of life *reduces* especially, voters become unhappy, and commerce has a tendency to become slightly downcast or saccharine.

...saccharine. That is a good word to describe this administration and recent economic forte.

It is also a profound measure of the success and quality of an empire/country. The breaking of our rights is also a very negative element that is not without fiscal consequences, although political and social and structural consequences are far greater.

So will America last 5 years, economically? The Fed gives that a 40% chance. Alen Greenspan gives it 3 years and 30%. Greenspan being the less interested party, I would use his figure. I would put the official tally at substantially less than 50% chance of moving through the next 5 years in better than 'fair' economic shape.

My personal analysis: we'll get housed by oil in time for the 2008 elections, engineered or no. That can be investigated later. There will be some truth to the problem of oil arriving at that time. But it may also play handily into someone's hands. *Do not* trust them. This will not be a time for trusting men with large plans unless they accord with God's plan very closely.

We may face this debt crisis when American credit runs out. I am not sure when that will be, but China and the world that disapproves of our military moves could choose to simply 'not finance' the war in Iran. In which case American credit would plummet, and American interest rates would shoot up, and we'd dry out. Considering that our plan is to roll over our bonds, we might come to an economic grinding halt if we are unable to meet our debt, and need to take teen% bonds. I don't think a possibly decade-terminal oil crisis is the time for a bond market. That power thing needs to be addressed first. More on that and the total tally soon.

3-5 years. Destabilization, too. Will we find ourselves in another Constitutional crisis when we impeach George W Bush? Will he commit our troops in Iran before we can get him out? Will the 2006 midterms bring this business on in time for 2007? What will China do in this situation? What would happen if the American people recaptured the American media, which is likely post midterms, which is likely in the year before the 2008 elections? We've got this North American Union thing that is seriously unpleasant. We're facing serious threats to our 1st 4th and 8th amendments, we're still at war with 'no nation', oh, and there's the 9/11 scandal. It's now a scandal, and not a conspiracy. When the scandal becomes trials that may be the official boiling point of political capital. Also that will be the latest possible point at which George W Bush will be impeached and tried, along with however many of the others who aided him. This will occur before the end of his term.

Those are the facts! Please pray to God for us.

American vs European Capitalism

We can easily measure this in certain ways. Unfortunately, the American style of stark capitalism has shifted dramatically to the right in recent years, providing 2 models, one established, one new circa 1999.

2006 capitalism has produced dramatically differentiated classes of income, and raised the cost of living bar considerably. At the same time, support for public services of all kinds, including healthcare and education, have been scaled back, sometimes by as much as 25% in one spending year. Profits for corporations and the wealthy have skyrocketed, but employment levels are far down and the average salary is far down and even farther considering inflation of currency and increase in cost of living. This is definately a downward swoop for about 75% of the population, and the general support services for all but the very rich and their elite core are also down in general.

European capitalism has slowed primarily as a result of their steady business cycle and as side effects of American and Asian fluxuation and fuel competition. Their technology is advancing rapidly and at a more evenly supported and installed pace than American technology.

It may also be noted that American corporations and ruling natural monopolies have been suppressing technology that could revolutionize materialism and the social economy as a whole.

For this reason, decency, I must prefer European capitalism over American, although Eurocap is by no means perfection.

Natural Monopolies and Alternative Energy

Why does the government create monopoly power via its patent system, when elsewhere it spends millions trying to prevent the emergence of or regulate monopoly power?

The state wants to foster scientific growth. Although, this may be at odds when a scientific advancement would threaten the basis of a natural monopoly. For example, www.byronwine.com shows that GM, oil producers, and other companies have worked to suppress carburater technologies and alternative fuel technologies. Rudolpf Diesel, inventor of the diesel engine, when he tried to switch back to vegetable oil from crude was killed, likely by industry competetors. His fuel plan would have substantially reduced the natural monopoly of refineries. Today, alternative fuel technologies could/would demolish the accrued arbitrary wealth stored up in those refineries, oil fields, and also in certain elements of the $billions-level auto industry, as well as shift massive oil-centered political power, and the energy production industry and all it subsidiaries, nuclear and coal plants, natural gas plants, commodities shifting systems and infrastructure, and potentially their power lines and permits and contracts, certain elements of jet propulsion and tactical military complex production and threat assessment, as well as certain chemical plants, steel mills, and other cottage industries that would be quickly replaced by a new technology that made superior procedures affordable. As well as the added competition that could potentially be faced in most any monopolistic business by drastically reduced startup costs due to this shift in power production and availability of superior systems. Modernizing itself would probably cost 10-20% of any major firm’s annual revenue, while obsoleting many industries and fundamentally altering many others. However, the cost of this upgrade would be dramatically reduced by the very same measures that caused the need to upgrade. Furthermore, the 10-year return on value of investment and quality of life would be phenomenal. However, an investment in this era and a reutrn in that era would be very difficult to compare due to the corresponding shift in the value and function of money in such a society. This might/would cause massive deflation, which could seem like devaluation to an analyst or investor, but in actuality it is hypervaluation because of the new perfusion of goods and the cheapness of producing and distributing those goods in the new market.

Alternative fuels still face an uphill battle, but they are being aided by Mother Nature, the principle of shortage, and growing human population. All these are God’s ways. Patents do exist for alternative technologies. About 20 patents exist for 100%< efficient special electrolysis water splitting technologies and certain companies make use of them. A patent for a motionless electromagnetic generator was produced in spring of 2002, but it has yet to be meaningfully applied for these reasons.

Capitalism vs Consumerism

Capitalism is pretty harsh, and involves few who are excessively wealthy who make the seemingly real decisions, to provide oten scripted choices for consumers.

In today's world of technology, we experience a considerable level of corporate and economic abuse from capitalism, most of it precipitated upon the outside world away from America and the 1st world by our corporate elites. If Africans had this corporate networking using them as a home base or an 'elite base' to paraphrase George W Bush, they would be rich, well educated, have cities with substantially less crime and full of infrastructure, have their diseases rooted out, etc.

We should focus on a kind of makret consumerism or commercialism overlaid with a level of economic democracy. It is not right that people who inherited all the money [world's resources] make decisions that are undemocratic, and unrepresentative of the needs and wants of the average person or directly honoring God.

I believe that a properly and freely educated public will be able to vote and pay effectively on issues. Capitalism brings us 3rd world debt and Enron, brings us a government owned and deadlocked. We must either enact anti-trust laws and freedom of science laws in this age of environmental and social precipice, we should not allow ubercapitalists to ruin the world and keep us from the ethical utopia we dream of.

Also this marketing to a Muslim religious niche is an offense in itself. Stop. Do you market to Christians?

Frankly, what WOULD Jesus buy? Probably basic needs and then anything else for charity to others.

Internet Mercantilism

Myspace has recently said that it may block Youtube.

This is why capitalism does not work well.

Myspace, if you block youtube, i will block *you*. What do you think this is? Tariffs of the mercantilist era? Myspace, you cannot possibly hope to make more money by blocking internet traffic. You cannot possibly expect to maintain a business or software edge by reducing your usability. Believe me, you will be swallowed like something someone didn't even know they ate.

This is also why internet neutrality is more critical than Myspace's business. If I'm blocked from youtube by my service provider, not only will I refuse to pay them for services not rendered, but I will search for a server that does provide this service flatly. Myspace, for threatening to degrade the internet, your stability has been threatened. Recant.

Consideration

I just recently blogged on this topic. It is actually my October 6, 2006 posting on this very page.

Please employ me as a professional analyst. I would accept the job of living somewhere in Virginia and examining these documents 40 hours a week plus projects for a reasonable salary and some level of immunity.

Let us also celebrate that China has unblocked wikipedia and has decided to not censor it. I have been praying about this. I am quite pleased with this activity and I will pray that it continues.


Now, businesses around America and the globe can likely save approximately 2/5 to 3/5 of Microsoft's annual revenue by switching to an open source OS and potentially open source office works. How much do our businesses spend on this annually? $45 billion? I read somewhere that it would require some $2K-$3K per user to upgrade to Vista. This probably accounts for a few extra sticks of RAM per device as well. Many businesses won't make this switch, and those that do, do not need to.

It would be cheaper for some large businesses to pay their tech sector or commission a free project to build Linux 2, designed to be widely-open compatible and user-structurable, if somewhat skeletonized. Linux 2 could also be pluggable like Mozilla, a framework of supporting code with suitable plugability for running programs that would be User Interface [UI], accessability and translatability, and device communication. I want it to be able to manually decipher USB communications, produce probable meanings based on HD-stored or server hubbed network databases, and for users to be able to customize the functionality of their joystick or printer's buttons in the way they communicate with the CPU.

You know, or whatever works for under 2-3K/head at your institution. Call the Nuremberg Valley of Germany. I bet they can help you. If America doesn't go open source next, let Europe do it and crush all. Bulgaria is already on the train!

Oh, about advertising dollars, Microsoft will need to join them or fight them, and fighting them will not be easy or legal. the real fulcrum rests with business' intelligence. While these stocks may not exist in their perfection, an officelike open source shell that does not rely on the internet is around the corner. When businesses look for a way to spend less on their software, they will find and make open source.

While pay-software will always exist, it is unlikely that it will be a requirement to pay for one drop of software. unless you like video games, which is something like a $30 billion world industry...

3D Printing and Internet

This is indeed what the internet could be like someday.

http://www.greedtube.com/video/28/web_20_thefirstpostcouk

I wouldn't design 3d printers to do this precisely, but printing out a cooked pizza slice and pulling magazines from a screen that also prints objects is a fantastic way to make the world be.

A 3D printer uses nanorobots to construct molecules atom by atom and objects molecule by molecule. A flat LCD-style screen could become a drafting board for printing that object out of the screen itself, or out of a relatively flat panel somewhere else. Documents could also be printed vertically instead of horizontally.

This and its compatriots by 2015. Or bust. Quite frankly, or bust.

Youtube and Money

Why have I heard so much about youtube being bought? I am not interested in allowing youtube to become a massive corporately owned nothing-box. Youtube owner, I saw you on some magazine. Keep your company. Does it not make you money? Do you not already have millions in assets? Diversify your stock portfolio, keep over half of your company if you are able to, and set aside a few mil in something realistic for if youtube suddenly bombs or something unimaginable.

That is my ownership-business strategy for you. You have made a fine product and your service belongs to the people of the world and of the internet, who choose to post videos online to share with others. Thank you for helping us! Please continue to. We will thankfully surf to your website and generate whatever income you manage to get from the site. That's the deal. We like it. Do not cut it.

I want to ask you, what would happen if this internet non-freedom was put into place, with your phone company giving you slower connection to websites owned by companies that compete with them?

Would phone companies even be able to field the complaints from all their existing customers? How many customers do you think would complain? 60-80%? More? how many would leave for a different company? 20-30%. Can you [company] lose 1/3 of your customers to your own greed?

The internet is a flat rate call. The 1st amendment is a clear and straightforward document and the law you must obey.

We need a classical reinterpretation of the 1st amendment, and the 4th for that matter. And regarding torture, the 8th. This should do our country very well. I believe electioneering reform, media freedom, "$/voice" is within the 1st, NSA and wiretapping and secret prisons and detainment are within the 4th, and torture is within the 8th. Note that all men are created equal and therefore we have to obey the interpretation that all humans on earth and all intelligent living beings are 'created equal' and have these rights.

Think about this the next time you consider devoting money to

Tech Sector

This is particularly about Microsoft. I've heard of their difficulties in the modern era, and I realize them. Their products are pretty *sluggish*.

Computing is like the world of economy F1 racing. If you don't make the fastest and best carputer for the cheapest, you will not win. Microsoft's products have become 'bourgeois'. Fluffy. Full of crap. Slowish in the CPU. Microsoft, is this true? If it's not true, show me.

IE is universally worthless. You can legally take many tips from mozilla and other such neat little engines. You could make a suitable technically customizable civilian browser. I have no interest in using your inbred emailing system. DON'T give me a button to do it on. I will just tear it off.

I am looking for a plain cheese pizza browser, ORGANIC, with no crap on it, leaving as much breathing space as possible for the CPU. Then I will browse from the condiments and whatever stuff I have brought with me to decorate it, obviously subject to examination. = how the consumer world works. Expect to make money around or through that system.

You can't make billions selling a giant hulking piece of junk and also have the will of the people. Right now you are struggling to have either. Why does Vista require 750Mb of RAM? That one always tripped me up, and because of the unpleasantly large cache size, I will not ever purchase Vista, and I will warn others of its foulty. If you hope to make $ off of Vista like 95, 98, or XP, you will be sadly mistaken, unless you trick a large number of executives into putting it on all their PC's, which is shameful and rowdy, and will harm the marketplace.

We work hard to slim our older [2003] computers down. Even the new ones get geeky [cool]. Vista is not in that world. Folks want to play Doom3 and have it run quickly, not by purchasing a billion megs of ram and a 4 gig clock and then running Doom3 through Vista, which is like running Doom3 through another instance of Doom3, but by having a reasonable amount of computer power and using it efficiently. Microsoft, your OS XP skips out on a dozen or more speed tweaks that have 0 reason to be off. Is this an offense? Shall we begin to investigate your fiscal and ethical earnestness? Seriously. Get on the stick. I am sure Vista could easily use half as much RAM as current and fix all the untweaked bits from XP.

You could probably make a good deal of money by typing out a small little versatile browser program, and kicking it out online. You'd make money because the program would cost like $10-20,000 to make. How to make money off this, though. Mozilla is free. How do they make money? Ads? Hey, how DO they make money? Are they non-profit? They probably do use ads. Mircosoft, you're a major company. You already have a large software and customer base. You can make more money from ads than from software, if you try. I wouldn't give you the true cred to make a tech zine site with any draw, but how long would it take your team, no, 1/8 of your team, to blast off a single well done browser that is contemporarily spy-free and will run on 30MB of ram? A day? Single digit project. "Inescapable usefulness." is the term that I want Microsoft to use. "Inescapable spaghetti."

I also really dig XPLite, even if it's not yours. I am considering it seriously. Maybe you should too. Once you've recouped your expenses on Vista... well, even beforehand, start slimming it down. Even at the sacrifice of some less useful features. Offer those things as downloadable extras, 'plug-ins'. My OS doesn't need to shave my poodle. It needs to open, have a visual display of my junk, and run my crap. Do it quick, do not leave corners. Do not ever crash, optimize the BIOS for me if you could with a single buttonclick, and run anything I say to. That is all. No lights, no gadgets, no guages. Do not automatically include WMP, QT, whatever. I can get those from the internet. They also slow it down, so I'm a shopper. Maybe sell Vista with those things as clickable extras, and cut the core size of Vista down today to ~550MB? I know you can. And if you work it will be 350 and 250 before you know it. That is 'within range'. TinyVista? Hey, what does Vista do that XP doesn't? I still haven't seen/paid attention to any of that. I say this seriously to you like an editor.

So... if you want to sell a giant Christmas tree without the spirit, go ahead, but know that it's a neon distraction and not a meaningful standby. Give the spirit.

Tech Sector

This is particularly about Microsoft. I've heard of their difficulties in the modern era, and I realize them. They are disliked for numerous reasons. One of the most important ones is their business practices. They face monopoly charges and fines from the EU... [but not from America?]. Their products are pretty *sluggish*.

*Computing is like the world of economy F1 racing. If you don't make the fastest and best carputer for the cheapest, you will not win. Microsoft's products have become 'bourgeois'. Fluffy. Full of crap. Slowish in the CPU. Microsoft, is this true? If it's not true, show me.

Enough browbeating. I'm here to help you. Your IE is universally worthless. It is weak because of its numerous exploits. We do not enjoy having to keep 85 updates on our computers, even from security center. This makes our computers slow and exposes them over and over to faults. No automatic updating system can make this right.

You can legally take many tips from mozilla and other such neat little engines. You could probably make a totally suitable civilian browser which would punch out viruses by not having a slot to be punched by them. I have no interest in using your inbred emailing system in my browser. DON'T give me a button to do it on. I will just tear it off.

I am looking for a plain cheese pizza browser, ORGANIC, with no crap on it, going as fast as possible. Then I will browse from the condiments and whatever stuff I have brought with me to decorate it. Those things too are obviously subject to examination. = how the consumer world works. Expect to make money around or through that system.

You can't make billions selling a giant hulking piece of junk and also have the will of the people. Right now you are struggling to have either. Why does Vista require 750Mb of RAM? That one always tripped me up, and because of that tripping and the unpleasantly large cache size, I will not ever purchase Vista, and I will shame it continually. If you hope to make $ of of Vista like 95, 98, or XP, you will be sadly mistaken, unless you trick a large number of executives into putting it on all their PC's. Which is shameful and rowdy, and will harm the marketplace.

We work hard to slim our older computers down. Even the new ones get geeky. Vista is not in that world. Folks want to play Doom3 and have it run quickly, not by purchasing a billion megs of ram and a 4 gig clock, but by having a reasonable amount of computer power and using it efficiently. Microsoft, your OS skips out on a dozen or more speed tweaks that have 0 reason to be off. Is this an offense? Shall we begin to investigate your fiscal and ethical earnestness? Seriously. Get on the stick.

You could probably make a good deal of money by typing out a small little versatile browser program, and kicking it out online. How to make money off this, though. Mozilla is free. How do they make money? Ads? Hey, how DO they make money? Are they non-profit? They probably do use ads. Mircosoft, you're a major company. You already have a large software base. You can make more money from ads than from software probably, if you try. I wouldn't give you the true cred to make a tech zine site with any draw, but how long would it take your team, no, 1/8 of your team, to blast off a single well done browser that is spy-free and will run on 30MB of ram? A day? Digit.

I also really dig XPLite. I am considering it seriously. Maybe you should too. Once you've recouped your expenses on Vista... well, even beforehand, start slimming it down. Even at the sacrifice of some less useful features. Offer those things as download extras. My OS doesn't need to shave my poodle. It needs to open, have a visual display of my junk, and run my crap. Do it quick, do not leave corners. Do not ever crash, optimize the BIOS for me if you could with a buttonclick, and run anything I say to. That is all. No lights, no gadgets, no guages. They slow it down. If you want to sell a giant Christmas tree without the spirit, go ahead, but know that it's a neon distraction and not a meaningful standby. Give the spirit.