This isn't a lot of money to raise. The fact that he can't suggests that his reputation is proceeding him.
For example, I could get $2 million to put together an office to develop software without even a buyer or a good market plan.. and I don't even know how to use powerpoint.
I don't think Focus Fusion requires any of the crack-pot stuff that Lerner goes on about. It's simply a whole lot of electrical power being turned into plasma and collapsing to a small point due to instability. Turning it into a workable power generator doesn't prove he is right about an electric universe or whatever, it just means he got the money to build a really big capacitor bank.
Do you have any basis for that statement or do you just hate Lerner? 'cause although I'm sure you're not alone in that, the results really should be judged separately to the man.
If he is right, he will have single-handedly solved the hardest, and most important problem of industrialized human history. And if that ever becomes the case, you can be sure his wack-brain ideas about how the universe works will be receiving a lot more serious attention than they are now.. so what do you hope for? That he fails and we don't get any cheap and safe power systems or that he succeeds...
If he manages to make a working unit will you apologize? Will you eat some crow or at least your hat? What I'm asking is; are you willing to risk anything by being a nah-sayer? And if not, why should we have any more respect for you than for the guy who is willing to risk his reputation, his career and a whole lot of money (some of it his own) on something he believes in?
Yeah, that's close enough. Although, personally, I think once you had one working you could make 20 of them and do a 20-to-20 connection with some high power switching (I believe diamond switches are required anyway) so the output of many units is cumulated on the input of one unit, with no capacitor bank in the way. That way you get really fast cycling of pulses.. much like a piston engine.
I don't know where *you* work, but being "inclusive and transparent" around here means inviting idiots who don't know anything about software engineering to come change the direction of your project the month before you hit important milestones. In many companies the only way to get stuff done is to congregate in secret and hope you can get the code written before some bozo manager starts telling sales and marketing that you're working on a high powered toaster.
You're suffering under the delusion of reading what you want to read. The law defines the meaning of "owner of a copy" as very different to "licensee".
If you find a random piece of software on the street, you have the right to install it and use it. You do not require a license. If you don't believe me, seek legal advice.
Excuse me? How in the world do you define "owner of a copy" to have anything to do with licenses? Seriously, this is what is wrong with law, people interpret the written word to mean exactly what they want. The lawyers in the room are laughing at you right now. The word "owner" is never used to refer to "licensee".
I have read the law. Making copies is prohibited. Making copies incidentally to run the software is exempt.
That's what the law says. There is no "requirement to have a legitimate license". I challenge you to quote the section of law in question. I believe you should be quoting the law because it is impossible for me to quote the absence of a law.
But it's a bit hit and miss. Along with funding the creation of some good youtube videos, and some good web design, they're also blowing a whole bunch of cash on a Second Life presence.
Absolutely. Couldn't possibly just be because we find this shit boring.. or that the cops just don't want to be there wasting their time policing people who don't even understand the purpose of protest. Nah.. it must be because of 'infaltration'!
Proprietary licensing is specifically designed to make the licensee dependent on the licenser. If there's bugs in the software then the licensee can't fix it and there is only one place the licensee can go to get the bugs fixed, the licenser, who is free to refuse to fix the bugs or demand exhorbinate fees to do so. Same with new features or support.
If you wouldn't do this to someone directly then giving code to someone else so they can do it is unethical.
Yes, you are telling me all sorts of new things here that I didn't know before. Thank you so much for enlightening me and no doubt everyone else on this site.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a lot of money to raise. The fact that he can't suggests that his reputation is proceeding him.
For example, I could get $2 million to put together an office to develop software without even a buyer or a good market plan.. and I don't even know how to use powerpoint.
Dunlite DGUH16E/3-S2 - 16 KVA 12000 watt 3 Phase E/S Honda Petrol Generator
16 kVA - 3 Phase - Honda GX670 24hp OHV Electric Start Engine
Continuous Output: 12000 Watts (3 Phase) , 25 litre Fuel Tank
$6,500.00
417 of these will give you 5MW.. that's $2,710,500 plus fuel. I'm sure there's cheaper ways for an individual to get the same capability.
So Lerner's device is only an order of magnitude cheaper.
Making a weapon of some sort out of it would be awesome.
they'll tell you that you're not very intelligent and that they can fix you.
Oh wait, that's Scientology.
I don't think Focus Fusion requires any of the crack-pot stuff that Lerner goes on about. It's simply a whole lot of electrical power being turned into plasma and collapsing to a small point due to instability. Turning it into a workable power generator doesn't prove he is right about an electric universe or whatever, it just means he got the money to build a really big capacitor bank.
Do you have any basis for that statement or do you just hate Lerner? 'cause although I'm sure you're not alone in that, the results really should be judged separately to the man.
If he is right, he will have single-handedly solved the hardest, and most important problem of industrialized human history. And if that ever becomes the case, you can be sure his wack-brain ideas about how the universe works will be receiving a lot more serious attention than they are now.. so what do you hope for? That he fails and we don't get any cheap and safe power systems or that he succeeds...
If he manages to make a working unit will you apologize? Will you eat some crow or at least your hat? What I'm asking is; are you willing to risk anything by being a nah-sayer? And if not, why should we have any more respect for you than for the guy who is willing to risk his reputation, his career and a whole lot of money (some of it his own) on something he believes in?
Yeah, that's close enough. Although, personally, I think once you had one working you could make 20 of them and do a 20-to-20 connection with some high power switching (I believe diamond switches are required anyway) so the output of many units is cumulated on the input of one unit, with no capacitor bank in the way. That way you get really fast cycling of pulses.. much like a piston engine.
Last I heard, Lerner was after about $2 million. $600k to $700k isn't all that, but rather than sulk, give it your best shot.
I don't know where *you* work, but being "inclusive and transparent" around here means inviting idiots who don't know anything about software engineering to come change the direction of your project the month before you hit important milestones. In many companies the only way to get stuff done is to congregate in secret and hope you can get the code written before some bozo manager starts telling sales and marketing that you're working on a high powered toaster.
You're suffering under the delusion of reading what you want to read. The law defines the meaning of "owner of a copy" as very different to "licensee".
If you find a random piece of software on the street, you have the right to install it and use it. You do not require a license. If you don't believe me, seek legal advice.
Excuse me? How in the world do you define "owner of a copy" to have anything to do with licenses? Seriously, this is what is wrong with law, people interpret the written word to mean exactly what they want. The lawyers in the room are laughing at you right now. The word "owner" is never used to refer to "licensee".
So yeah, *AAANK TRY AGAIN*
I have read the law. Making copies is prohibited. Making copies incidentally to run the software is exempt.
That's what the law says. There is no "requirement to have a legitimate license". I challenge you to quote the section of law in question. I believe you should be quoting the law because it is impossible for me to quote the absence of a law.
But it's a bit hit and miss. Along with funding the creation of some good youtube videos, and some good web design, they're also blowing a whole bunch of cash on a Second Life presence.
bwahaha.. this is the interpretation they'd like you to think is the case. Go actually read the law.
If you find a copy of the software on the street, are you honestly saying you have no right to install and run it?
Copyright law says otherwise.
So what's unlawful about buying software, installing it and then reselling it?
Again, I can't take seriously anyone who thinks it is actually called Worlds of Warcraft.
You're an idiot, go away now.
If there's people who are willing to do the editing for free, why would you pay them?
You're not missing much. It's a lot of hard work to write a novel. It's even harder when you have no talent.
Absolutely. Couldn't possibly just be because we find this shit boring.. or that the cops just don't want to be there wasting their time policing people who don't even understand the purpose of protest. Nah.. it must be because of 'infaltration'!
So basically, you're saying that if you're not being raped or murdered then you have nothing to complain about.
What a wonderful life you must lead.
Try to get Skype to fix one of the thousands of reported bugs in their product, then you'll know why you're a victim.
Blah, failing to do everything in your power to prevent evil is just as bad as doing it yourself.
Uhh.. is that an honest question?
Proprietary licensing is specifically designed to make the licensee dependent on the licenser. If there's bugs in the software then the licensee can't fix it and there is only one place the licensee can go to get the bugs fixed, the licenser, who is free to refuse to fix the bugs or demand exhorbinate fees to do so. Same with new features or support.
If you wouldn't do this to someone directly then giving code to someone else so they can do it is unethical.
Cause the people you *are* giving it to can't use proprietary licenses to victimize others, and they can still do useful and helpful things with it.
Yes, you are telling me all sorts of new things here that I didn't know before. Thank you so much for enlightening me and no doubt everyone else on this site.
Yeah, he's fucked me there.