Zell, Chris wrote: > The problem with the examples you cite are that the industries that >were overcome DID NOT see it coming- and so did not suppress the >competition accordingly.
Incorrect. In the examples I gave, everyone saw it coming, but they underestimated the extent of the changes. In the case of CF and free energy, ALL establishment scientists and industry leaders see nothing coming, because they have read nothing and they are 100% certain it is physically impossible, like a person jumping from the earth to the moon. >IBM thought the future lay in hardware and Bill Gates knew differently. IBM made the most successful personal computer in history, and they tried to make a PC operating system but failed. They underestimated Gates, Dell and the others. >US car companies did not foresee the decades long threat from Japan. They did not foresee they would lose. Everyone could see that VW and the Japanese were coming into the U.S. market. >In the case of free energy, a dramatic discovery could get an inventor >killed . . . I doubt it, but that can easily be prevented, by going 100% public and distributing thousands of copies of the plans via the Internet. There is no point to killing someone when there is no secret because thousands of people know about it. On the contrary, killing the inventor will only excite interest in the field. This happened when Gene was killed, even though his murder had nothing to do with MIB. > With only a little >excess energy reported >from Cold Fusion, it isn't taken seriously (yet). It will not be taken seriously until it is far too late to prevent it from spreading to ten-thousand labs. As I said, the way things stand now, there is no chance an oil company exec or high official will become alarmed because they are all perfectly certain that CF is pathological nonsense. It has never crossed their minds that they might be wrong. Believe me, I have talked to these people, including Huizenga, Taubes, Park, and many others. They are as sure that CF and all other OU claims are physically impossible as I am certain that Newton's laws are correct (to the first approximation anyway), or -- to take a more controversial example -- as certain as I am that Darwinian evolution occured. I could no more convince them to look seriously at a paper by Storms, McKubre or Iwamura than a Creationist could convince me to look seriously at religion-based arguments. Such things are simply off the radar screen. Not worth a glance. Not logical arguments in any sense. You might a! s well try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5. (Neo-Lamarkian theories are interesting and plausible, or at least scientific and refutable, but I think they are wrong.) I am sure that is how opponents all feel toward cold fusion. That is what they say, and I have no reason to doubt it. >When Ralph Nader emerged as a sudden threat, GM sent out "investigators" >against him. He was not making a technical claim that every scientist considers preposterous. He was making claims about cars that all of the auto manufacturers knew to be correct. That situation couldn't be more different. - Jed
