Re: >>> the "underside-LAS"-like NASA "MLAS" >>>

On Jan 14, 10:49 am, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:38 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:







If you post something on the usenet, aren't you ASKING someone to take
it?  I mean Landis and others debated me very strongly about my
optical powersat ideas as well as optical propulsion ideas.  These
weren't my ideas per se, others before me had made similar
observations, I merely tossed out a few of my own ideas in this
area.   Landis wrote a few papers about laser powersats and laser
propulsion of his own - that I thought took my major points.   But, he
in no way 'stole' my idea.  In fact, I would say I am gratified to see
my points taken and used to develop some real contributions to the
field.

Point is, I'm not in a position to write technical papers today - and
I'm not in a position to do some of the research I'd like with some of
my thoughts.  So, I like putting some ideas out there on the usenet -
and I am gratified, not pissed off, by the fact that I see papers
appearing after my public commentary - that incorporate some of my
thoughts.

Did I contribute?  Who knows?   Maybe after arguing with me about why
a thin film structure wouldn't work, Landis came up with his OWN way
of making it work - did I contribute?   Only tangentially.  Yet, I am
happy that I got him thinking along optical lines - and away from
microwave - which imho radically reduces powersat masses and makes
them far more doable using today's launchers.

So, quityerbitchin - and take pride in the fact that you contributed
at some level - or if you didn't really contribute - you worked in
parallel.  Sometimes independently developed systems don't make it.
Look at the history of the light bulb, or the vidicon tube or internal
combustion engine, or electro-mechanical switches for automatic
telephone dialing.  Lots of good ideas, very similar in general
strokes, very different in detail.  Do we remember Swan or Nernst the
same way we remember Edison when it comes to lightbulbs?  No.  Even
though both made huge contributions to the art.  So what?

If you want more, do more - and do it more wisely.   Otherwise, be
happy that you're doing something constructive and your ideas are not
totally ignored.

If you're into the taking of other R&D, such as yourself, and not
giving credit where such credit is due, then perhaps a bullet as
carefully placed into the most effective location is what you actually
deserve.  Within government and of their insider faith-based
puppeteers is clearly where the best action is, whereas the takings of
as much as you want ant always at the public expense is what got the
likes Hitler so far on such little to start with.  So yes, taking from
others is about par for the Mook course, and without ever a shred of
remorse is why it's always a solid win-win for the old gipper of
keeping the likes of Mook's offshore bank accounts stuffed with our
hard earned loot.

Speaking of  "If you want more, do more - and do it more wisely.
Otherwise, be happy that you're doing something constructive and your
ideas are not totally ignored", how's your vast PV farms of producing
such cheap H2 coming along?

After all, if Mook's H2 ever existed, we'd be into using it for all
the right reasons, even if it's taking up such vast storage volumes
doesn't exclude terrestrial surface or subsurface applications, or
otherwise on behalf of those nifty internet blimps making a much
faster and cleaner alternative data network than anything LEO or
especially of GSO nodes.

- Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,

People who have made it in this world generally have contributed far
more than they have taken and thus have a certain freedom in their
life. We might for lack of a better term call them winners.

People who have not made it in this world, generally don't contribute
as much as they take, and as a result, see their freedom of action
constrained by lack of resources. We might for lack of a better term
call them losers.

Now, when one compares winners and losers we are struck by the fact
that the winners are free and when they encounter a problem, they seek
to change their own behavior to accomodate and correct such problems.
The losers on the other hand look to change others behavior, not
having any freedom of their own or control of their own resources.

So, when one reads what people write, it is fairly easy to see if
they're winners or losers.

You Brad, speak ALWAYS as a loser. Someone who doesn't even control
his own private parts. Someone who is always at the mercy of someone
else. Someone who seems ready to resort to violence to redress
ancient grievances.

There is a way to change this Brad. Look at your own thoughts, your
own behavior, and your own skills and abilities as your principal
resource, and do what you want to do in this life with those. In this
way, you can begin to see just how hard it is to be a winner in this
world, and just how much harder it was to be a loser.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poundland shelf-stacker claims its forced labour, sues for human rights
    ... in other countries who are probably in a similar position to us. ... winner in a system that will always produce winners and losers. ... I take it that by an exhortation to 'live with the facts' you mean learn ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Find second minimum number
    ... He then discusses quadratic selection. ... EITHER it's one of the winners in the other four groups, OR it's one of the losers in z's group. ... Likewise u. So the second highest is either z, or u, or y, or x, or d, or f (the two losers to @ in the first round). ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Pastoral letter #45 from resurrected saint.
    ... G-d is just life; therefore, follow life and you will have peace. ... there's nothing on them but losers. ... Winners, ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Pastoral letter #45 from resurrected saint.
    ... G-d is just life; therefore, follow life and you will have peace. ... there's nothing on them but losers. ... Winners, ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)