Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates's New Version of the Einstein Letter
dcblogs writes "In 1939, Albert Einstein sent 'F.D. Roosevelt, President of the United States,' a letter with a warning about Germany's interest in a new type of energy with potential for use as a powerful bomb. The letter also outlined the competitive threat posed by Germany and steps for improving US research efforts. Last week, Bill Gates, along with GE's CEO and others, met with President Obama to deliver their own message: that of the top 30 companies in the world working on alternative energy, only four are in the US. Similar to Einstein's point and recommendations, Gates and his allies are asking the US to view the alternative energy push as a competitive threat posed by other nations, particularly China, which may be doing a better job in bringing its engineering talent and money to bear on this problem."
Einstein wrote of specific people and experiments. Gates does not.
Einstein warned of a horrible weapon. Gates is warning us that the most environmentally ravaged countries might be developing alternative energy (may god have mercy on our souls, lol).
Einstein acted alone and was not heavily invested in nuclear energy. Gates and his friends are heavily invested in alternative energy sources.
I'm no biographer of either but from what I know Einstein seemed to be motivated by things like the discovery of knowledge and genuine concern for mankind. Gates has (at least historically) seemed to be motivated by profit and money first above everything else with ideals similar to Einstein distantly following that primary motivator. Maybe he's changed but Einstein has always held a more altruistic image in my mind. That tends to happen to people long gone who made staggering advancements. Who knows, maybe revisionist history will see Gates alongside Einstein? But as it stands now, my personal opinion is that the two are not even close.
Bottom line: Einstein was a scientist who made great discoveries. Gates was a businessman who made great sales.
I'm not sold on Gates' motives. He sounds more like a lobbyist than a sage omen of caution like Einstein was.
My work here is dung.
Wind energy this, Solar energy that. It's all fantasy dreamed up by hippies. It may or may not be able to meet a high percentage of our energy needs at some point in the future.
Nuclear power is here now. We know it works. We know it's safe, if done right. Sure, it's expensive, but if we'd invested a few trillion in nuclear power over the last 30 years ago we'd have ended up saving a shitload on foreign wars, cost to the environment from oil spills and pollution, etc...
At the rate we're going now, nothing will have changed 20 years from now. Instead, we need to start building nuclear plants and investing in research on portable power like fuel cells so we can use that nuclear power outside of the main power grid.
I don't understand this, the people who wrote this 'letter' to the president are rich, look at the names. So they can start a company to create new energy production facilities etc. but they decide to write to the administration as if it is as urgent as a nuclear weapon about to be created and unleashed by a warmonger. Einstein obviously was concerned about a new weapon that Germany could develop and use to completely dominate the globe, Gates and Co. looks like are hoping for the government to get into yet another money laundering scheme.
If these guys think their ideas are worth a try and may work they should invest their money, they'll be rich beyond their wild dreams (hard to do, considering who they are, but still).
BP is getting billions of dollars from government contracts of all kinds, looks like this new initiative is about the same thing.
Build factories and make your energy generating equipment and see if you can compete with it and deliver something people will buy, why are you trying to involve the administration into this? The only thing that comes to mind is yet another money laundering scheme, a Halliburton/BP level scheme.
You can't handle the truth.
These guys are just a bunch of politicians trying to get in front of the trend. If they knew what goes on in their own businesses they would be warning the President (for all the good it would do) that of the top 30 companies in the world, most or all have discovered significant intrusions from China and other places, should reasonably assume there are more yet to be discovered, and that the US government should get off it's fat, dumb, sleepy, behind before it is hit with a hack attack that will make Pearl Harbor look like kids playing with cap pistols.
Amazing. Just five years to go from:
China, they just can make cheap copies of western technology
to
China, they are starting to compete with western products
to
China is ahead on R&D
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
The free market is great for some things, not so great for others. Table top cold fusion? Sure. A 27 kilometer in circumference particle accelerator? Not so much. Some projects require the expertise and products from many companies from many different industries. No single company or coalition of companies would be able to pool their resources to accomplish something like the LHC.
You are simply railing against the free market and are looking for any angle in any story to do such.
Seems like you are being sarcastic, but there is no need. Big businessmen have never been friends of the free market, they have always been only too happy to lobby for as much taxpayer money as they can lay their hands on. It's the conflict of interest I am worried about here. If it was some non-profit environmentalist group that was lobbying for government money I could understand, but not when it's the people who have most to gain financially from such investment.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
You've got to be joking. To see a rise in sea levels, you have to melt land-based ice, of which the only significant volume is on Antarctica. Even the IPCC admits that to see appreciable rise would take over 10,000 years. This is a cruel joke, with us as the punchline.
It's another way to strip people of power sources that enable modern standards of living in the here and now.
Yes. I am absolutely for it. It could replace that coal power plant down the way that's spitting nuclear, gaseous, and particulate pollution into the air. If properly built, nuclear power is very safe.
Sure, it costs a shitload of money to build and properly maintain a nuclear power plant but all we're doing now is just pushing that cost into poor air quality, possibly global warming, foreign wars, a high dependence on the ups and downs of oil/natural gas prices, etc...
You should have your Slashdot privileges revoked for that post.
I don't understand this, the people who wrote this 'letter' to the president are rich, look at the names. So they can start a company to create new energy production facilities etc. but they decide to write to the administration as if it is as urgent as a nuclear weapon about to be created and unleashed by a warmonger.
Because they want Government to finance the R&D (socialize the risks and costs of R&D) and then let the private sector reap the rewards - just like what was done with the banks.
America: risks, losses and costs are socialized: profits privatized. It's only for folks who are connected. For you and me, the peons, we get the bill but not the profits. Not even the jobs because you know this shit will be made over-seas.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001