Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] falling salaries and lifestyle'
Gee Russell, you are SO cheery. Is it the water?
I was surprised to see "too cheap to meter" attributed to Edison. I
remember it being attached to 1950's -era nuclear power plants...There
was a wonderful advertisement in
Scientific American to that effect, and is one of the reasons I so
strongly distrust anything
SA ever says...
have a good day...
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Russell McMahon
<paradise.net.nz> wrote: apptech
At 10:38 AM 4/15/2009, Bob Axtell wrote:
>Gee Russell, you are SO cheery. Is it the water?
It must be, because that model assumes endless supplies of cheap
ingredients, just like the oil revolution did, and look where that got us.
|> Gee Russell, you are SO cheery. Is it the water?
Comes from eating lots of fish oil, apparently :-).
(According to SW?)
> I was surprised to see "too cheap to meter" attributed to Edison. I
> remember it being attached to 1950's -era nuclear power plants.
Yes. I got it wrong :-).
Amusingly, here's a 1995 quote
On the one hand, we tend to succumb to the various merchants of
hype, overestimate short-term spread of technology as of its salutary
impact-"a helicopter in every garage"; "Atomic power too cheap to meter";
the "Internet in every classroom."
They got the helicopter and power predictions correct. But, I wonder what
they'd think of OLTPC?.
> have a good day...
I always try to :-)
But, what I was doing was responding to the intentional (I assumed)
>> ... will find largely unlimited resources ... transformed by
>> nano-technology and cheap power ( solar, fusion,
>> zero-point ) ... which will vastly increase productivity. ...
And, I think my comments about Fusion were about correct. No?
I look forward to the day when they (we?) start selling power from Fusion
plants. Or, better still, giving it away for a flat rate payment, because
it's too cheap to meter :-).
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009
, 2010 only
- New search...