The Non Linear Plasma Reactor

[TimFox]

TL;DR
If the book had significant validity, then surely there would be many other similar books and/or it would be more widely well known.

   I don't agree.  For example, just because most of the human race hasn't seen the new 'Top Gun' movie don't mean that it isn't a good movie.  The number of viewers of a movie or the number of readers of a book or the number of purchasers of any given product is often more about the amount of advertising than the quality. That's why we had to suffer through YEARS of TV advertisements for the trashy Ronco products.

  I'm sure that pretty much everyone on this list can name some very good books that most of us have never heard of.   Have you read Obed Macy's 'History of Nantucket' printed in 1835?  I have but I doubt that anyone else on this forum has.  Yes, that book is OT for this forum but so is Cipolla's book.  But if your interest lies in those areas then both are probably worth reading.

There is some truth to your post, but by and large, I don't think it shows the true picture.
There are going to be (I suspect, in some cases), real gems, among things which are very largely overlooked.  But by and large, there are very good reasons, why something has never hit the popular sales, for that item.
In other words, if a video sales place has block-busters for sale, for £20 (blu-ray/DVD), reasonable ones for £5 each.  Sale/special ones for sale at £2.  Bargain basement ones for £1.  Extreme bargain basement ones, for £0.49  then I suspect, ones for sale for £0.05 , or 10 for £0.25, or the entire bin (basket), for £0.99 if you remove them today.  Are going to be of terrible/uninteresting to most people.
I.e. for £0.05, the general idiom, 'You get what you pay for', probably will apply here as well.
TL;DR
Just because there are rare (opinions might vary) exceptions, something which appears to be unpopular etc, probably is NOT very good.

As I stated above, the book itself is rather small and perhaps not cost-effective.
There are some detailed comments on the book online, for example  https://medium.com/mind-cafe/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity-513de9dd0bd5  for those who don't need a small book for their coffee table.

[PlainName]

I think if you're going to use it it should be at the start so people can skip the rest. Makes no sense to have to read it all just to find the precis

[TimFox]

I think if you're going to use it it should be at the start so people can skip the rest. Makes no sense to have to read it all just to find the precis

I gave my own précis earlier, but, since some people seemed interested, I cited a more detailed description of the book.  Feel free to ignore all of the above.
After a long career, I am still interested in precise differences between the related concepts of ignorance, idiocy, and stupidity, which are not synonymous.

[MK14]

Feel free to ignore all of the above.

Sorry.  But that is what I'm doing, and why I might appear to not be replying to your earlier post, apparently directed towards me.

I just don't like the concept/way of attempting to label people as being of certain types, rather than trying to create a nice/fair society, that handles, ALL the people, of all ages/abilities/etc.

Deeper discussion here is not really allowed (no politics).  Hence some of my possible (full) reply, could be missing, or had to be watered down.

As the internet age, progresses, and flat-earth/free-energy/perpetual-motion/5G-harms/kills-people/etc concepts/groups, become more entrenched.  Difficulties with people like the OP, may become more of a hazard.

Calling them names (such as, not top ability level), doesn't really handle the situation.  If a person has modest natural abilities, it doesn't mean that they will have to ignore doctors/scientists advice and so on.  I.e. There is a lot more to it, than just a simple label.
Also, even people with apparently high ability levels, also seem to be able to succumb to things like this.  E.g. Phishing scams.  (High ability levels, just not in using a computer, safely).

I am apparently contradicting myself, to some extent in this post.  Because on the one hand, I'm saying please don't label people.  But on the other, labeling them as free-energy etc types.  My excuse, if you look at any human feature/nature in any kind of detail, there can be all sorts of contradictions, all over the place.  E.g. Supports never eating meat (Vegetarian or Vegan), yet enjoys going hunting over the weekends and/or wears leather shoes.

I suppose my other excuse, is just because their abilities, are not at the top end, doesn't mean they have to make the mistake (in some peoples opinions), of going the free-energy etc, route.  I.e. One can have not the best abilities known to man, but can still believe the experts, when they say, perpetual motion machines are simply not possible, without some kind of energy source (even then, they would stop when the fuel (e.g. fusion material) runs out).

[Zero999]

The fact many people believe in free energy indicates ignorance of physics.

I bet if I told the same people who fall for it I could make something i.e. mass out of thin air, they wouldn't believe me, but they fall for energy because they don't understand it and consider it to be magic. The famous formula E = mc² proves this to be false. If you can make energy from nothing, then there's nothing to stop you magicking gold from nothing.

[bd139]

Hey I'm in software. We're really good at magicking gold from nothing. In fact the real trick is giving people shit in exchange for gold.

[SiliconWizard]

Hey I'm in software. We're really good at magicking gold from nothing. In fact the real trick is giving people shit in exchange for gold.

 

[MK14]

Hey I'm in software. We're really good at magicking gold from nothing. In fact the real trick is giving people shit in exchange for gold.

You're right, that works!
Let's check the mathematics. Given:

E = mc²

Since any software we write, create and sell to others.  Is entirely weightless, and since we exchange the software, for money, which can be exchanged for Energy.

We get, E = Some positive money (e.g. £10K, with electricity very approximately at £0.30/kWh) = 33,333 kWh (approx).

m = Total weight/mass of software produced = 0.

Proving that:

E = mc²

Must be wrong somewhere?               

So, you can generate free-energy, in a limited (sit down and write software) sense.

(Just to be clear, this is written in jest, free-energy is still thought to be impossible, without some kind of tangible fuel source).

[bd139]

The formula has a different meaning in software engineering.

E = mc ^ 2

E = entropy increase of the universe
c = the speed of outsourcers
m = the mass of bloatware

At no point is money considered there. No one has worked out how money actually works in software, much like trying to unify gravity into the standard model. Thousands of accountants and economists are pondering the problem as we speak.

[MK14]

The formula has a different meaning in software engineering.

E = mc ^ 2

E = entropy increase of the universe
c = the speed of outsourcers
m = the mass of bloatware

At no point is money considered there. No one has worked out how money actually works in software, much like trying to unify gravity into the standard model. Thousands of accountants and economists are pondering the problem as we speak.

Also, if you succeed in making any money from software, in the UK (jobs and businesses aside).  A significant black-hole opens up, termed (IR35), which gobbles up, an arguably unfair amount of the money.

[bd139]

Actually on that, Ingmar Bergman wrote a scene in The Seventh Seal about me and HMRC trying to come to an understanding on an IR35 issue.

[MK14]

                
                

[SiliconWizard]

A new report from the IPCC includes all those stand-up meetings in various climate models and that showed a significant contribution to global warming.

[RJSV]

OK, uh, MK14: You missed the sublety of the back-hand phrase ' intelligence not at the top'.
What that really means is, very understated, 'no where near the TOP...more like rock bottom stupid' , as the understatement, itself, indicates emphasis!  A language subtle aspect, (maybe difficult aspect of any different culture / language.
Kind of like, when a person rolls their eyes, saying "Yeah, right, sure".
It's an interesting dynamic, of the various terms, not being synonyms...more subtle stuff.

[MK14]

OK, uh, MK14: You missed the sublety of the back-hand phrase ' intelligence not at the top'.
What that really means is, very understated, 'no where near the TOP...more like rock bottom stupid' , as the understatement, itself, indicates emphasis!  A language subtle aspect, (maybe difficult aspect of any different culture / language.
Kind of like, when a person rolls their eyes, saying "Yeah, right, sure".
It's an interesting dynamic, of the various terms, not being synonyms...more subtle stuff.

It's tricky, as I'm trying not to use words which would cause potentially strong/significant psycological biases, in readers of this thread.

The way I see it, is when someone (or me), as a person, tackles a brand new subject/concept/hobby/activity, for essentially the first time.  There is a significant tendency, for the person, to believe that, although they are by no means an expert on that subject area/activity.  They, from general background/current experiences, would be reasonably able to successfully tackle that thing.  I.e. They may think, they are already at 60% to 70% experience level in that subject/activity, even though they haven't done it at all yet.
Which is just a reasonably common human nature thing.

It is only when they attempt to actually carry out the activity for the first time, they discover how useless and initially severely lacking any real experience or skills, in that subject area/activity.
E.g. Previously, I thought (a very long time ago, indeed), I could reasonably fly a helicopter, despite zero actual experience.  But one day, I came across (possibly at a flying centred museum or vaguely similar, such as a science museum), a very simple, but effective, helicopter flying skills tester/simulator.

It was such a long time ago, it was just a simple/small mechanical thing, with a helicopter joystick, and ball bearing(s) or similar (a bit like a kids toy, with ball-bearings and a simple puzzle layout, in a small hand-held case), which you had to safely control.  Basically, I was completely hopeless at it, and couldn't even control it, even partially, for more than about a second or two.  Then the simulated helicopter, would crash.  I.e. The ball-bearing would hit the sides, or other out of control behavior.  I then appreciated how immensely skillful and amazingly difficult, flying a helicopter, actually is.

So, I more put this, into that people just don't realize how little they know, until they significantly move into that new (to them), subject area.

[PlainName]

Put simply, the above members are not ridiculing a person

That's why social media is so poisonous. People forget that there's a real person that's the target of their comments. No, it's not just some made-up name you can metaphorically kick the shit out of without consequences.

[MrMobodies]

The formula has a different meaning in software engineering.

E = mc ^ 2

E = entropy increase of the universe
c = the speed of outsourcers
m = the mass of bloatware

I had a few customers who use to complain but it turned out sometimes to be what the manufacturer bundled with the operating system and their recovery disc image.

There one time when I was with someone ordering a new computer from Dell over the phone in 2010. This man had like a bowbell cockney accent. With the software he told them he just wanted Windows 7 Pro and that's it and the dvd to reinstall it (with no games or promotional stuff on there too). Then they kept on pestering him to buy Mcafee with it and their other stuff. He told them directly that "if you don't stop he'll shove discs up your bl**dy a**e and go somewhere else" then they are started to listen and sent him out one to his specifications and a non oem graphics card that he specified and someone around to install it in his house. He did purchase Mcafee which cost much more from somewhere else but apparently he don't like being pressure sold things.

I found it amazing how he got the message through with a little rudeness.

[Nominal Animal]

Put simply, the above members are not ridiculing a person

That's why social media is so poisonous. People forget that there's a real person that's the target of their comments. No, it's not just some made-up name you can metaphorically kick the shit out of without consequences.

Yet, in a scientific or engineering discussions, we need honest feedback, and yes, even ridicule where ridicule is due: otherwise, we accept anything non-shit as perfect.

But the target is, and must be, always, our output –– even when talking face-to-face.  The output can be modulated, controlled, adjusted; our person cannot.  So, the desired change in attitude is to make sure that the focus of the ridicule is not the person, but the output.

("What you are saying is nuts", instead of "You're nuts".  I know I fail in this too; my only defense is that I was about forty when I learned this: somewhat stuck in my habits.  It is difficult to drop a habit that is repeated all around you, but at least I know it is something I want and need to work on.)

What I didn't like, is labeling OP "conspiracy theorist", because it is one of the labels used to mean "hey everyone, you need to ignore the output of this person; not because of the output, but because the person apparently belongs to this category".  It is one of the terms that imply something completely different to what it actually means, just like "emotional intelligence", and a perfect example of strong tribalism even among science/engineering types in Western societies.

I am a conspiracy theorist.  I do not believe in basically any of them, but I like to entertain them in order to understand the reasoning among those who do, and also because I find it fun to try and extrapolate the real world effects if it were true.  I like reading about new conspiracy theories.  I also like to read about new scientific theories and models, although I do not even consider their applicability/reliability until they are used to model or predict something physical.  So, I am also a fringe theory aficionado.  I don't mind entertaining things that have a very low probability of being useful/correct, as long as there is something related to that thing that I can learn that is; and usually, that thing is about the people who believe or discuss such things.

The difficulty, as in this thread, is when an OP is not interested in honest, critical feedback, but is seeking support.

Now, that support, is exactly why you get sub-reddits and whatnot where all sorts of inanity is amplified.  Having observed some for a few years now, I do not think they actually believe in most of what they apparently agree with, as they are really there for the support and not critical or intellectual discourse.  To feel not-alone, instead of actually examining their thoughts and ideas.

In other words, because of emotional reasons, and not for any kind of intellectual pursuits.

The human world is the kind of world where a good brand is worth more than any product.

[MK14]

What I didn't like, is labeling OP "conspiracy theorist", because it is one of the labels used to mean "hey everyone, you need to ignore the output of this person; not because of the output, but because the person apparently belongs to this category".

The thing is (on practical grounds), there seem to have been a number of hardened, free-energy or somewhat similar, thread starting posters, who suddenly have appeared on this forum, over a number of years.  They are just completely 110% convinced that their ideas, are absolutely correct.

E.g. That a shaky Youtube video, which shows someone (who is known to not be trustworthy), show a couple of magnets, and a large coil, supposedly produce unlimited free-energy, and is lighting up a filament bulb.  With apparently no batteries or mains connections, at all.  It just keeps on spinning and spinning, all by itself.

Despite a few pages (or more), of various attempts at explaining to them, that it is a scam and/or definitely won't work, and would defeat a number of well established laws of physics.  They just keep on insisting, that it is real, and there really is free-energy.  Typically resulting in the thread(s) eventually getting closed, and sometimes getting the OP banned, as well.

Hence me being very weary/precautionary, against coming across these free-energy, is real, ideas people.  Talking them out of it, seems to be an uphill, and almost impossible task, at times.

[AVGresponding]

Hey I'm in software. We're really good at magicking gold from nothing. In fact the real trick is giving people shit in exchange for gold.

You're right, that works!
Let's check the mathematics. Given:

E = mc²

Since any software we write, create and sell to others.  Is entirely weightless, and since we exchange the software, for money, which can be exchanged for Energy.

We get, E = Some positive money (e.g. £10K, with electricity very approximately at £0.30/kWh) = 33,333 kWh (approx).

m = Total weight/mass of software produced = 0.

Proving that:

E = mc²

Must be wrong somewhere?               

So, you can generate free-energy, in a limited (sit down and write software) sense.

(Just to be clear, this is written in jest, free-energy is still thought to be impossible, without some kind of tangible fuel source).

How do you figure that? Writing software requires brain activity (without getting into just how much or how little) which uses energy, typing it in/dictating it to an interface requires energy. Storing it requires both mass and energy, as does executing it.

E=mc² expresses the equivalence of mass and energy, so even if there was no mass, the energy part of writing software has a mass equivalent. So it does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Some people might argue that it is an example of the second law at work, turning useful energy into random noise...

[Simon]

a "bandit", who harms others and profits from this harm himsel

What could profit be? Presumably he is thinking money or status or similar, but suppose someone just enjoys harming someone else. Does his enjoyment count as profit? What if he has a grudge - someone else ran off with his girlfriend, perhaps, or nicked his motor - would 'taking down' the other person be profit since it might discourage others from doing the same?

Perhaps that section might better read as "a 'stupid person' who unwittingly does not derive gain from his harm to others".

I call my colleagues at my last job stupid. In their lack of understanding of what they were doing and never foreseeing the consequences they tried to bully me into submission, in their view they were staying on top and in control and had the status over me so were gaining, then I left, and I left them stupid as they then lost and became stupid as the pain of rebuilding what they lost in me the only person that understood my job and no longer being able to be seen be be top dog as they lost their under dog left them rather stupid.

[PlainName]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

The difficulty, as in this thread, is when an OP is not interested in honest, critical feedback, but is seeking support.

Yes, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there.

[Nominal Animal]

What I didn't like, is labeling OP "conspiracy theorist", because it is one of the labels used to mean "hey everyone, you need to ignore the output of this person; not because of the output, but because the person apparently belongs to this category".

The thing is (on practical grounds), there seem to have been a number of hardened, free-energy or somewhat similar, thread starting posters, who suddenly have appeared on this forum, over a number of years.  They are just completely 110% convinced that their ideas, are absolutely correct.

Sure, but just because they seem to form a group, does not mean they should be lumped into a group and summarily ignored based on "membership" in that group.

By all means, evaluate their output and make up your mind based on it –– I definitely do! ––, but do not use a surface similarity in their output to classify the person as someone to be ignored.

Talking them out of it, seems to be an uphill, and almost impossible task, at times.

Like I said, that seems to be because they're looking for support, and not critical examination of their ideas.

If they were critical of their own ideas, they'd be happy to receive reasoned counter-explanations with references.  Which, in my opinion, are one of the best part in a technical discussion.

[Simon]

He just wants to make enough noise that he gets noticed and a steady stream of cash comes into his piggy bank that he won't declare to the job centre when he gets back. I mean if he wanted to go big he should have copied elizabeth holmes more exactly.

[MK14]

How do you figure that? Writing software requires brain activity (without getting into just how much or how little) which uses energy, typing it in/dictating it to an interface requires energy. Storing it requires both mass and energy, as does executing it.

E=mc² expresses the equivalence of mass and energy, so even if there was no mass, the energy part of writing software has a mass equivalent. So it does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Some people might argue that it is an example of the second law at work, turning useful energy into random noise...

You're quite right.  You have looked at the problem/situation (of a programmer), in a different way, to the way I was looking at it.  I was referring to the actual software itself, the final product.   Which has no mass as such associated with it.

But (quite right) you are pointing out, that in order to create, maintain and test/debug that software, probably (ignoring new AI systems), was done by human programmers, who expended energy, through living and breathing, and arguably other energy uses, while developing the software.
Such as fuel to get to/from the place the software was created (work or similar), heating/cooling energy, and other expenditures of energy, such as the computer systems, lighting, and perhaps other things.