Ted Fellow

Someone is shy

Ted hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors
Taylor, congratulations on scoring a spot at TED. Now you need to augment your enthusiasm with technical innovation. It will be very helpful to carefully consider the comments by Jon Phillips below. Jon points to some of the very difficult technical challenges that face all SMRs and variations thereon. Do net let these challenges stop you. Instead, use them to study potential solutions. All you need is one good solution to one major issue, and you have a unique design that may separate yours from other designs. With any fission reactor there will be radiative waste. You might consider recent work done in low energy nuclear transmutations pioneered by Toyota and Mitsubishi Heavy labs. There are very interesting breakthroughs in ways to change dangerous nuclear waste to relatively harmless non-radiative waste. Do not be discouraged. Think far out of the accepted paradigms, and have fun!
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Look, bottom line is some of us (TED "Science Board") ARE in fact holier than thou! And you cannot make us do the next right thing. So don't expect the censored TEDx talks by Sheldrake and Hancock to be restored to their proper positions any time soon. It is people like this that have ruined all we've worked for centuries! /sarc
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Has TED Talks not been embarrassed enough by its solipsistic "Science Board" to issue a full apology and amends to Hancock and Sheldrake? And to return their videos to the TED YouTube Channel and TED.com front page?? When are you people going to grow up enough to admit this egregious error?? Or will this episode mark the beginning of the end of TED taken-seriously? Honestly, even your own TEDx staff has demanded a full apology and retraction. The TeaParty attitude of TED's "Science Board" recalls the church orthodoxy that took 400 years to apologize for censoring Galileo. Pathetic.
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Dear TED Talks: now even your own organization (TEDx Whitechapel) opposes your reprehensible act of censorship. Time to grow up and return the legitimate talks of Hancock and Sheldrake to their fully deserved positions at TED YouTube and front and center on TED.com. Face it TED. You blew it big time and the fix is to humbly admit you were WRONG. http://www.c4chaos.com/2013/03/tedxwhitechapel-calls-out-ted-to-reinstate-sheldrake-and-hancocks-talks/
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
The refusal to restore the videos to YouTube and to issue a genuine apology to authors Sheldrake and Hancock, confirms TED and its "Science Board" have retreated to the rear of their cave - fingers in ears; reciting their mantra, "La la la la..."
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Well, it looks like Dr. Sheldrake is offering TED an opportunity to explain themselves (and make amends?) Considering the catastrophic negative hit TED Talks has taken by this episode - accepting Sheldrake's offer to debate the TED "Science Board" is most generous. Refusal to follow through and allow the public to see who and how your "Science Board" operates - will nail the TED coffin shut. OPEN science means OPEN dialog - allowing the public to determine whom to follow and for what reasons. TED? Your move.
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
You seriously are calling Dr. Sheldrake "SLEAZY?" Al, you appear to be everything that has badly damaged your "brand." Unfortunately, you seem unable to divorce yourself and your brand from a set of rules arbitrarily enforced. Apparently in support of the materialist orthodoxy TED is newly "branded" with. This, to any market savvy b-school grad, is a colossal PR failure.
Noface
Ted Fellow
Posted over 1 year ago
Did Rupert Sheldrake make a factual error?
There is a factual error right here in David Marshall's NIH Complimentary and alternative medicine 2011 budget of $441,819,000. In FACT NIH's 2011 budget for alternative and complimentary NCCAM was $127,603,000.00 or, 0.4% of the NIH budget just as Sheldrake amended his generalized comment. http://nccam.nih.gov/about/offices/od/directortestimony/0511.htm