Re: PHYSICS: force fields

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 23:27:26 MDT

  • Next message: Terry W. Colvin: "FWD [fort] The Debunker: A Pseudo-Skeptic By Any Other Name"

    Wingcat noted:
    <<We agree that those who might otherwise invest in
    these technologies do not see much economic return
    from them.  However, there is disagreement as to
    whether their forseen lack of profits is, itself,
    incorrect.  Do you believe they are being too
    pessimistic for their own good in this case - i.e.,
    that despite what they believe, they *actually* would
    stand to make significant profit if they developed and
    marketed these technologies?

    I think that many investors, have a tendency to play conservative, which is
    wise for them. My point is that there appears to be technology, which appears
    worth developing, but lays fallow, because of the need for short-term payoffs.
    The government is cautious because most taxpayers do not wish to pay more
    taxes, over a long period to develop new technology.

    I am confident that many useful technologies are largely unrecognized, in the
    form of particle physics, and condensed matter physics because the investor
    is investing elsewhere.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 23:39:11 MDT