4 ms·

This will coincide perfectly with next year being the year of the linux desktop. I don't think its a coincidence either that reporters try to cover this up when

by fleitz 14y ago

This will coincide perfectly with next year being the year of the linux desktop. I don't think its a coincidence either that reporters try to cover this up when writing about Mountain Lion and Windows 8. You'll never see them link to the many articles that suggest next year will be the year of the linux desktop, despite the fact that these articles have existed since at least 1997. Again, no reasons as to why, either linux doesn't work as a desktop, or their actively suppressing it to support Big Software. The year after that, the 2nd version of the ecat will turn lead into gold instead of nickel into copper.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
I think the reaction to the claims of Cold Fusion was a low point for science and the scientific method. From what I've read, it's very likely that Pons and Fleischmann were (and still are) wrong about what they observed. They almost certainly missed some factor, accidentally or intentionally, that provides another explanation for their claimed results. However, the reaction at the time was nothing less than an emotion-driven witch hunt. It was shameful, really, and not at all in the spirit of science. Very disappointing. Check out this line from the wikipedia article on Cold Fusion about a conference of the American Physical Society on the topic- "Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann," which was met with a standing ovation." Ah yes, the personal attack, the very heart of scientific values. The claims were what they were. Wrong? Sure. Deserving of such open vitriol? No. Certainly not from people who call themselves scientists.
- fleitz 14y ago
  I tend to agree with you regarding Pons and Fleischmann, it seems to me it went the way science should go, they thought they had a discovery, it couldn't be validated, no discovery. But then a witch hunt started around the politics of it. On the other hand the eCat seems like a pure scam, it's things like the eCat that really get to me, Pons and Fleischmann not so much, I still wonder whether some unknown condition caused their experiment to actually work and others to fail.

by fleitz 14y ago

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I think the reaction to the claims of Cold Fusion was a low point for science and the scientific method. From what I've read, it's very likely that Pons and Fleischmann were (and still are) wrong about what they observed. They almost certainly missed some factor, accidentally or intentionally, that provides another explanation for their claimed results. However, the reaction at the time was nothing less than an emotion-driven witch hunt. It was shameful, really, and not at all in the spirit of science. Very disappointing. Check out this line from the wikipedia article on Cold Fusion about a conference of the American Physical Society on the topic- "Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann," which was met with a standing ovation." Ah yes, the personal attack, the very heart of scientific values. The claims were what they were. Wrong? Sure. Deserving of such open vitriol? No. Certainly not from people who call themselves scientists.

fleitz 14y ago
I tend to agree with you regarding Pons and Fleischmann, it seems to me it went the way science should go, they thought they had a discovery, it couldn't be validated, no discovery. But then a witch hunt started around the politics of it. On the other hand the eCat seems like a pure scam, it's things like the eCat that really get to me, Pons and Fleischmann not so much, I still wonder whether some unknown condition caused their experiment to actually work and others to fail.