If this is profitable, "the petroleum industry" will most likely not fight it, but adapt and probably become large investor and user of this technology (probably ruining many ecosystems in some poorer countries as a side effect). The oil processing multinationals (not the well owners, these are mostly state-owned in feudal countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia) have been considering the "peak oil" and what it means to them long before it became a fashionable topic on the internets. They realize that the less oil there is, the more vulnerable they are.

They got a taste of it after the oil rose significantly after certain events from 2003 onwards. Many oil-exporting countries started to re-evaluate their contracts with the big oil multinationals. Competition for the wells from companies from rising developing countries is increasing, and control of technology may not be a very viable option.

So, everyone in the field seems to have some alternative strategy. Some have invested heavily in shale oil, some in underwater extraction, some in biomass, some in totally unrelated stuff. You can fully expect that if this thing shows promise beyond an article on physorg.com many will look into it.

I know three.

measurement while drilling (on your asshole, asshole)?

Working conditions in Taiwan 10 or 15 years ago were much better than China today IMHO. In 1997, the Taiwanese had already had their first truly democratic elections, working conditions were tolerable mostly everywhere, there was already a national medical insurance plan and some social security in place, there were rather strict labor safety laws, environment pollution laws, etc.

DNRTFA, but in Japan there would be a market niche for this kind of hardware, maybe to use with a stored value card of the kind that is used to ride the train. There are many establishments - cafes and small restaurants - that will not let customers plug a computer on the account of the outrageous electricity bills they believe they will incur.

Also, some Sony computers there come with the hardware and software to use such cards, so I presume they demo a kit that links those two (or a similar kit) together.

So, I would not read too much into it, it is just a demo of a niche application.

If it is galactic in origin, probably it doesn't - the cosmic background has a different origin.

I hope that other companies take notice and start doing the same, and that the number of people abused in the name of capitalism decreases worldwide. The gadgets may become a tad more expensive, but hey, it may out to be worth it in the long run for everyone.

True, and "The Network" was precisely about them. We can only hope that they are not the majority, and that the old saying that you can fool some people all the time, many people for awhile, but you can't fool everybody forever is true. And keep shooting the satire at them, I think that still works.

I have covered the reasons this will not work already, but there is one more angle to it.

What you describe is only part of the real problem. The full problem is that the concept of unlimited growth with good life for everyone is unrealistic and unsustainable, given the current combination of amount of resources, expectations, social organization and distribution of capital and technology.

Those rather unrealistic expectations of what is desirable, both in terms of lifestyle and social organization were set during the past 70 or so years, in which period the US has had more than its fair share of growth. This growth was mostly due to historical circumstances that are unlikely to repeat- the emergence of the US as the dominant world power after WWII that has allowed the US to reshape world resources usage largely to her own benefit.

As resources grow scarcer and its position wanes, the US will find it even costlier to impose its resource requirements abroad, and as costs go up, your proposal will become even more difficult to realize.

The only real way to solve your problem is to work for a real leveling of the "playing field", and that must include a corrective for the historical circumstances from the previous paragraph. I somehow don't think most in the US will look warmly to such a proposal.

This isn't going to work though, not in a society like the US, whose value system is based on the notion that individuals live with the liberty to pursue happiness for themselves, and whose concept of happiness is mostly measured by the level of consumption you can afford.

The problem with your position is that as long technology is lowering transaction and transportation costs, there will be a powerful incentive for companies to use the cheapest sources of labor and capital and a powerful incentive for consumers to choose the cheaper output. These will generate enormous legislative pressures against you, and your position will be voted out.

Your position is based on your view of what is valuable in the long term, based on your ideas of what the national interest is. Okay. But can you define this national interest in terms of money and a time frame, like a company that says to its shareholders "next year we will move output to China and allow for profit increase of 50%"? No, you can't. You can make an argument that leveling the playing field is beneficial long-term, but long-term is heavily discounted against, and so is your argument.

It is the same on the consumer side. The business will say "we can give you 20% cheaper X in 6 months, 25% cheaper in 12 months". What can you say to that? "In 20 years you will be out of jobs"? Again, almost nobody will care until that time comes.

Moreover, those that do care today on either side will try to get prepared when the time comes anyway, so for them it will make more sense to get the cheaper goods/make the extra profits now and use the saved resources for preparation. In other words, even people who think like you may not vote for you.

Also, can you guarantee that anyone in your audience will benefit from your proposal? The distribution of benefits from cheaper production are immediately obvious, both to companies and to consumers. The distribution of gains from your long-term ideological plan are not. In 20 years, US may well be better off, but that doesn't mean the particular shareholders and consumers who will benefit from the short-term low labor will make any gains from that. So, you cannot appeal to many specific voters, and you will not have support at the polls.