The New Admin Has Venture Plans

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:26 am

Seems logical that B Hussein Obama might want to kill VC. VCs fund small businesses that TEND to support small government (i.e. Reps), so if BHO can kill the VCs, he kills small business and thus the RP. QED.

FutureMan · Post by **FutureMan** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:40 am

great, more right wing paranoia from M. Simon. Excuse me while I barf.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:21 pm

How about you post something useful to the discussion like a proper refutal, rather than something tasteless?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:53 pm

FutureMan wrote:great, more right wing paranoia from M. Simon. Excuse me while I barf.

True or false my friend:

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner recently declared a need to regulate venture capital firms on the grounds they pose systemic risk to our economy.

True or false?

Professor Science · Post by **Professor Science** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:18 pm

Look, the bush administration was all about bread and circuses, it almost seemed like they'd admitted the greatest America could ever be had been and gone and now they were just trying to accommodate an aging dieing republic. Now I don't whether or not you think the nation is being undone by senility and younger competitors, but I have to think that we can keep improving, and Obama's trying to do that.

Trying! This is the operative word, frick Yoda, you can't do until you try and I'll chose someone who tries over someone who "do not"s every time. A society that looks forward to an improved tomorrow as opposed to a "glorious past" will be better for anyone interested in doing things the awesome way, and if you're going to continue this caterwauling everytime the president says anything about you're precious free market system and stop working on the problem of getting this fusion reactor glowing and burning then take it to the countless GOP and republican and conservative blogs who are exist to discuss this horrible horrible attack on human nature and money. But this is about science and saving the human race. Lets keep it about that purest of endeavors, ok?

JLawson · Post by **JLawson** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:20 pm

Professor Science wrote:... but I have to think that we can keep improving, and Obama's trying to do that.

Trying! This is the operative word, frick Yoda, you can't do until you try and I'll chose someone who tries over someone who "do not"s every time.

Respectfully - the man who tries to disarm a bomb when his only tool is a hammer is simply a scatterbrain.

The job may need to be done - but using the wrong tool can cause more problems than the original job. Sometimes you need to wait for the tool (or technology) to be developed FOR the job.

Now, complaining about wasteful spending by Bush and then spending 3-4 times that amount on pork doesn't necessarily mean he's 'trying to improve things' for everyone, but he's darn sure lining the pockets of those who helped get him where he is.

And I'm beginning to think that, like pretty much every Democrat I've seen elected to office, his goal is not to keep the promises that got him into office but to ensure the problems they represent are kept unchanged for the next election. A solved problem can't be used as election fodder - the electorate has a VERY short memory for accomplishments, but an endless gullibility when it comes to promises.

If Obama were serious about energy, he'd be pushing nuclear power. He'd be tossing more than pocket change at Polywell, he'd be working on clearing the roadblocks to various reactor projects. Instead - he promotes wind. (No shortage of THAT inside the beltway!) Ethanol's getting to be a non-starter - the refineries for THAT are closing as it's not profitable as it needs to be. Feinstein's blocking solar out in CA - it wreaks too much ecological havoc for her tender sensibilities. ("Shade! In the DESERT! Oh, the horror of it all!") Pelosi and Reid have blocked drilling for domestic oil offshore - so what are we supposed to be using, radioactive mutant hamsters spinning giant wheels attached to our turbines for the power to run the country?

I'm thinking that if Polywell DOES show good evidence that it'll scale up - it'll be cancelled or sidetracked. There will be a 'good' reason, of course - but massive amounts of cheap energy will change the status quo, and THAT is something politicians are dedicated to preserving at all costs.

Saving the human race through technology? Feh - not when votes are on the line!

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:54 pm

JLawson wrote: And I'm beginning to think that, like pretty much every Democrat I've seen elected to office, his goal is not to keep the promises that got him into office but to ensure the problems they represent are kept unchanged for the next election. A solved problem can't be used as election fodder - the electorate has a VERY short memory for accomplishments, but an endless gullibility when it comes to promises.

If Obama were serious about energy, he'd be pushing nuclear power. He'd be tossing more than pocket change at Polywell, he'd be working on clearing the roadblocks to various reactor projects. Instead - he promotes wind. (No shortage of THAT inside the beltway!) Ethanol's getting to be a non-starter - the refineries for THAT are closing as it's not profitable as it needs to be. Feinstein's blocking solar out in CA - it wreaks too much ecological havoc for her tender sensibilities. ("Shade! In the DESERT! Oh, the horror of it all!") Pelosi and Reid have blocked drilling for domestic oil offshore - so what are we supposed to be using, radioactive mutant hamsters spinning giant wheels attached to our turbines for the power to run the country?

I'm thinking that if Polywell DOES show good evidence that it'll scale up - it'll be cancelled or sidetracked. There will be a 'good' reason, of course - but massive amounts of cheap energy will change the status quo, and THAT is something politicians are dedicated to preserving at all costs.

Saving the human race through technology? Feh - not when votes are on the line!

Excellent take, throughout, hamsters excepted... I like the Winston Churchill quote that seems apt:
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

The funny thing is, that it is becoming apparent, to everyone with even a modicum of technical ability, that wind is nearly useless relatively to apparent alternatives. We're gonna do it anyway.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:15 pm

JLawson wrote:
I'm thinking that if Polywell DOES show good evidence that it'll scale up - it'll be cancelled or sidetracked.

SO what.

Its opensource.

And the price tag to join the club is about 2-3 mill. Christ I had 3 mill lined up for Bussard thru DJ White @ Earth Trust but they couldnt agree on terms.

One of DJ Whites projects:
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/delphis/

Cancellation or sidetracking would only revive interest in VC funding for Polywell. If DJ White contacted me again with interest in funding, maybe Simon, Tom and I will end up working together. Not, >wink<.

JLawson · Post by **JLawson** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:20 pm

Forgive my pessimism on this - but if the government cancels Polywell for 'cause', you're going to have a heck of a time getting anything resembling permits here in the US, and although overseas may be a bit easier, I think the money men will find subtle dis-incentives tossed into their paths. All an eco-minded group needs to see is 'nuclear', and it wouldn't matter HOW clean or wonderful it is, they'll reflexively do what they can to stomp it to death.

Need I say that I'm REALLY hoping I'm wrong on the reluctance of the US to follow this?

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:21 pm

No country would allow the polywell boat to leave without them, unless the benefits were marginal. The greenies aren't stopping the petrol industry today, even though there's apparently enough in clean sources (tidal, etc) to replace it. The bucks trump greenies easily... Nevermind if polywell is in fact as clean as promised, cleaner than coal and nukes.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:49 pm

JLawson wrote:Forgive my pessimism on this - but if the government cancels Polywell for 'cause', you're going to have a heck of a time getting anything resembling permits here in the US, and although overseas may be a bit easier, I think the money men will find subtle dis-incentives tossed into their paths. All an eco-minded group needs to see is 'nuclear', and it wouldn't matter HOW clean or wonderful it is, they'll reflexively do what they can to stomp it to death.

If it works and gets shot down here in the U.S., just let me know and I will talk to the people I know in Japan and China.

scareduck · Post by **scareduck** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:34 pm

Anybody who can claim that Twitter, bereft of anything resembling actual utility and a viable business plan, not to mention burning $20M/month, is going to be one of the big winners in the coming (we hope) recovery is failing to think critically.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:37 pm

It's thinking like "tidal etc" as viable for continuing the green revolution is what will require Americans to exhaust all alternatives before stumbling on reasonable energy policy. The "everything but" approach will put Americans decades behind the French, Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, or anyone else whom demonstrates the common sense to consider energy density and output over "feel good" sources that have some political traction through pork barrel vote accumulation.

Tidal is not serious from an energy density and continuous generation standpoint, and "etc" is the vaguest energy source I've ever heard of.

pfrit · Post by **pfrit** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:23 am

Helius wrote: Tidal is not serious from an energy density and continuous generation standpoint, and "etc" is the vaguest energy source I've ever heard of.

I have thought for a while that most of these alt energy sources were a boondoogle, but I will say that if you live in west Texas your electric company would be a bunch of idiots not to put up some windmills. Same for living in the Sonoran desrt and PV and in Maine and tidal generators. These sources are weak and intermitent, but if they are plentiful where you live, use them. Just don't ask me to depend on them in Pennsylvania. We have coal here and we would be equally idiotic not to use that. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, I am not sure that tidal would be good in Maine. The waves might be too intense.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:05 am

Helius wrote:and "etc" is the vaguest energy source I've ever heard of.

Obviously the person you quoted is a world renowned spokesperson for green energy worth personally discrediting, and you yourself don't know roughly what are the alternative energy sources being considered by greenies.