On Friday, 19 June 2020 18:27:35 UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 9:49:28 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ > > > > That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, > > adoration from movie stars. > > It's important for people to differentiate a scientist from an engineer. It is mostly rogue engineers who have given science a bad name. If one of those nut cases becomes a "hero," we're in serious trouble. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > > > > Science teaches us to doubt. > > > > Claude BernardI could be wrong, but Language meaning is not the strongest suit for Engineers. So may I defer to experts. Some have contributed to the Wiki definition, which includes Engineers under Applied Science and therefore if you have been involved in R&D then indeed you are a scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#Natural_science But then not all scientists, Lawyers and Doctos are created equal. So this is not a binary question , but an analog one with degrees or exponentials depending on education or actual inventions, or applied science products created. I know one Engineer who was OK in RF but did much better in Financial Advisory, so he would probably not consider himself a scientist. Nor would you consider some Engineer who has spent most of their time in Project Management to be a scientist. Bill S. considers a scientist only if the requirement is met with a peer reviewed published report. Even my son-in-law who has tenure at U of T in Power Engineering says. most of those papers are crap. When I once applied to HP in Loveland Co. the requirement wasn't just papers publish, but how many and how which field the PhD's were in. Physics being the most respected. I realize not everyone will agree with Wiki on this, but science is not just a matter of papers or degrees but also diligence in critical thought and finding solutions when none seem to exist. https://vashiva.com/ Here is an Engineer/Scientist who wants to be a politician. The poor guy who want to work with those bastards but with an appealing moralist motivation is running against Elizabeth Warren.
scientists as superstars
Started by ●June 19, 2020
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:26:13 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:>On 19/06/20 20:04, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:07:02 +0100, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 19/06/20 18:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:57:42 +0100, Tom Gardner >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 19/06/20 17:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human history, >>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>> >>>>> Summary... partly in the right area, but certainly >>>>> not close enough for a cigar. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, >>>>> >>>>> Nope, but close. >>>>> >>>>> UK court ruled that Edison infringed Swan's patent. >>>>> US Patent Office also invalidated Edison's patent. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> telegraph, >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Not even close. >>>>> >>>>> Even if we ignore the telegraphs proposed in the 17C and >>>>> widely implemented during the Napoleonic wars, the first >>>>> commercial long distance electric telegraph was installed >>>>> in 1839 in the UK. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> airplanes, >>>>> >>>>> Nope, not even close. >>>>> >>>>> First person to understand and demonstrate the principle >>>>> of flight was Cayley. His first manned (well, boyed) flight >>>>> was in 1949. >>>>> >>>>> There were many others, notably Otto Lilienthal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> triodes, >>>>> >>>>> Close. See Robert von Lieben. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> nuclear reactors, >>>>> >>>>> Arguable. Much of the inspiration and work was >>>> >from European refugees. >>>> >>>> Bingo. Creative people come here so they can create stuff. >>> >>> The European refugees didn't have much choice >>> about where they went. >> >> It's a pretty big world. But a lot of european scientists came, and >> still come, to the USA. >> >>> >>> >>>>> The first industrial scale nuke was in England. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>> >>>>> Shrug. >>>> >>>> If you shrug bbq ribs, you've never had good ones. >>> >>> Quite possibly, but it isn't earth shattering. >>> >>> >>> >>>> But none of the other possible prior inventions went anywhere. >>> >>> The electric light bulb didn't go anywhere? >>> The telegraph didn't go anywhere? >>> Nukes didn't go anywhere? > > >> The point is that these inventions flourished here. There are many >> cases of likely prior art in europe, but that never went anywhere. > >Telegraph flourished in Europe first, and then was >of key strategic importance in the British Empire. >It flourished there too. > > >> The >> Homebrew Computer Club changed the world. > >So did the British, e.g. with the world's first commercial >computer that was used, of all things, for ordering supplies >for a chain of tea/coffee/cake shops back in 1951 (LEO 1 >computer for the J Lyons & Co)What happened? With radar and code breaking machines and systems operations from the war, England should have dominated electronics and computers.> > >>>> Given that the US is about 5% of the planet's population, we sure >>>> create a lot of stuff. And a lot of that stuff is created by amateurs. >>> >>> A lot? In the past yes, but not as much as you >>> seem to imagine. >>> >>> Plus, of course, you've ignored all the things >>> the Americans didn't develop. >>> >> >> Europe seems to have slowed down a lot in invention, in the last maybe >> 200 years. China and Japan don't invent a lot of new stuff either. The >> Chinese are good at industrializing but don't invent much. > >For Europe, 50 years more like. > >China is rapidly improving in that respect, and westerners >would be foolish to rest on their laurels.Nobody is resting. People keep inventing and building things. There is no academic or government or financial institution to stop them.> > >> England had >> scads of opportunities that were lost. > >Absolutely. That's been a running sore all my life. > >"King Rat" by James Clavell (based on his WW2 experience in >Changi) comes close to illustrating why. > >Boris Johnson and co are the current illustration. >Shortform: an unwarranted belief that good breeding is >more important than competence.Yes. Is the class structure still very important? ARM is one success story, but it's a Chinese company now. I've been told that class/caste structures inhibit India. Some classes simply don't work with their hands. That's why they produce great theorists but not so many inventors. Bell Labs (sadly missed) deliberately mixed up practical telephone people with Nobel-class scientists. That was very fertile. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:57:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:>On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 10:17:17 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> ...The requirement to publish is part of the >> fame-and-fortune thing. Some serious fraction of published >> "scientific" research can't be reproduced. > >This is the big hole in that argument: the requirement to publish is part of the >routine business of finding out if an effect can be reproduced by an >independent effort. The occasional lack of reproducibility is >a scientific bit of progress, telling you that there are some >variables (or uncertainties), perhaps not yet understood. > >It isn't about fame, it's about knowledge and understanding, and >even looking STRAIGHT AT IT you don't see that. Your preconceptions >are the reason we often disagree with your findings. >What you claim and report is not the truth of science in the world, but >of the image of science in your mind. > > >> More than anything else, more than a need for truth, people seek >> power. Economists and scientists aren't immune from that. > >So?This is astounding: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/anthony-fauci-coronavirus-anti-science-bias/index.html "One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are -- for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable -- they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority," Fauci said. "So when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that -- and that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth," Fauci said. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
lørdag den 20. juni 2020 kl. 00.56.37 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:26:13 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 19/06/20 20:04, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:07:02 +0100, Tom Gardner > >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 19/06/20 18:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:57:42 +0100, Tom Gardner > >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 19/06/20 17:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, > >>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more > >>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; > >>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every > >>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human history, > >>>>>>>>> probably. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame > >>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential > >>>>>>> to authority by nature; > >>>>> > >>>>> Summary... partly in the right area, but certainly > >>>>> not close enough for a cigar. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope, but close. > >>>>> > >>>>> UK court ruled that Edison infringed Swan's patent. > >>>>> US Patent Office also invalidated Edison's patent. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> telegraph, > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope. Not even close. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even if we ignore the telegraphs proposed in the 17C and > >>>>> widely implemented during the Napoleonic wars, the first > >>>>> commercial long distance electric telegraph was installed > >>>>> in 1839 in the UK. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> airplanes, > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope, not even close. > >>>>> > >>>>> First person to understand and demonstrate the principle > >>>>> of flight was Cayley. His first manned (well, boyed) flight > >>>>> was in 1949. > >>>>> > >>>>> There were many others, notably Otto Lilienthal. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> triodes, > >>>>> > >>>>> Close. See Robert von Lieben. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> nuclear reactors, > >>>>> > >>>>> Arguable. Much of the inspiration and work was > >>>> >from European refugees. > >>>> > >>>> Bingo. Creative people come here so they can create stuff. > >>> > >>> The European refugees didn't have much choice > >>> about where they went. > >> > >> It's a pretty big world. But a lot of european scientists came, and > >> still come, to the USA. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> The first industrial scale nuke was in England. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. > >>>>> > >>>>> Shrug. > >>>> > >>>> If you shrug bbq ribs, you've never had good ones. > >>> > >>> Quite possibly, but it isn't earth shattering. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> But none of the other possible prior inventions went anywhere. > >>> > >>> The electric light bulb didn't go anywhere? > >>> The telegraph didn't go anywhere? > >>> Nukes didn't go anywhere? > > > > > >> The point is that these inventions flourished here. There are many > >> cases of likely prior art in europe, but that never went anywhere. > > > >Telegraph flourished in Europe first, and then was > >of key strategic importance in the British Empire. > >It flourished there too. > > > > > >> The > >> Homebrew Computer Club changed the world. > > > >So did the British, e.g. with the world's first commercial > >computer that was used, of all things, for ordering supplies > >for a chain of tea/coffee/cake shops back in 1951 (LEO 1 > >computer for the J Lyons & Co) > > What happened? With radar and code breaking machines and systems > operations from the war, England should have dominated electronics and > computers. > > > > > > >>>> Given that the US is about 5% of the planet's population, we sure > >>>> create a lot of stuff. And a lot of that stuff is created by amateurs. > >>> > >>> A lot? In the past yes, but not as much as you > >>> seem to imagine. > >>> > >>> Plus, of course, you've ignored all the things > >>> the Americans didn't develop. > >>> > >> > >> Europe seems to have slowed down a lot in invention, in the last maybe > >> 200 years. China and Japan don't invent a lot of new stuff either. The > >> Chinese are good at industrializing but don't invent much. > > > >For Europe, 50 years more like. > > > >China is rapidly improving in that respect, and westerners > >would be foolish to rest on their laurels. > > Nobody is resting. People keep inventing and building things. There is > no academic or government or financial institution to stop them. > > > > > > >> England had > >> scads of opportunities that were lost. > > > >Absolutely. That's been a running sore all my life. > > > >"King Rat" by James Clavell (based on his WW2 experience in > >Changi) comes close to illustrating why. > > > >Boris Johnson and co are the current illustration. > >Shortform: an unwarranted belief that good breeding is > >more important than competence. > > Yes. Is the class structure still very important? > > ARM is one success story, but it's a Chinese company now. >isn't ARM mostly owned by Softbank, a Japanese company?
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On 6/19/2020 6:11 PM, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:24:05 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 6/19/2020 1:34 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:52:36 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/19/2020 12:46 PM, bitrex wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human >>>>>>>>> history, >>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>>> >>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, telegraph, telephone, >>>>>> airplanes, triodes, superhets, transistors, ICs, lasers, nuclear >>>>>> reactors, bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Those tended to be invented by individual Americans they weren't some >>>>> collective effort. I'm sure a large fraction of the US population >>>>> thought airplanes were straight nonsense until they saw one in the air, >>>>> and that seemed to be the opinion of the popular press as well. >>>>> Ridiculous, a total theoretical impossibility! some guy who wasn't an >>>>> aeronautical scientist or engineer might say. oh. would you look at that. >>>>> >>>>> Whomever invented BBQ ribs was probably told by many of his compatriots >>>>> "That'll never sell..." >>>>> >>>> >>>> And then after they saw one millions of the same Americans told their >>>> friends "Well. you know. I always knew it was possible. I was one of the >>>> earliest supporters of manned flight if you recall. Truly amazing what >>>> we Americans can do when we put our minds to it!" >>> >>> Why do you make up this sort of nonsense? >>> >>> More contempt. You are all about contempt. You must be very insecure >>> to have such a need to mock. >>> >> >> >> Man, we have one of the meanest most contemptuous vindictive SOBs who >> ever lived for a President. > > Have you researched all of them? > >> and lots of people love him, he wouldn't be >> President if they didn't. He's careful to only say nice things about >> certain types of people, though. >> >> Me? I'm just not that careful > > I just got a call from a Big Thinker in the semiconductor business, > who ranted for half an hour about current events. He agrees with me, > anyone who has spent their life in politics is long decoupled from > reality, but DT has common sense and does good stuff, but should just > keep his mouth shut more. But there is the alternate theory that DT is > so smart, he knows exactly what he is doing.I don't let business associates/clients talk to me about any topic that's not business or software or electronics for a half hour, much less politics or current events. I politely stop them and say perfectly honestly "I don't discuss these topics with clients it tends to be bad for business. Everyone has opinions and we see them and talk about them all the time elsewhere." The majority seem satisfied with this answer. I'm not a confidant or therapist or buddy and conversely nobody's paying me for my opinions.> R has studied DT a lot more than I have. He is a thinker. Both of them > I guess. > > All successful companies have a few Big Thinkers. >I think Apple could have done as well without Steve Jobs' return, they just needed to have not hired John Sculley or Michael Spindler.
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:39:50 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>On 6/19/2020 6:11 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:24:05 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >> >>> On 6/19/2020 1:34 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:52:36 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:46 PM, bitrex wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human >>>>>>>>>> history, >>>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, telegraph, telephone, >>>>>>> airplanes, triodes, superhets, transistors, ICs, lasers, nuclear >>>>>>> reactors, bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Those tended to be invented by individual Americans they weren't some >>>>>> collective effort. I'm sure a large fraction of the US population >>>>>> thought airplanes were straight nonsense until they saw one in the air, >>>>>> and that seemed to be the opinion of the popular press as well. >>>>>> Ridiculous, a total theoretical impossibility! some guy who wasn't an >>>>>> aeronautical scientist or engineer might say. oh. would you look at that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whomever invented BBQ ribs was probably told by many of his compatriots >>>>>> "That'll never sell..." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And then after they saw one millions of the same Americans told their >>>>> friends "Well. you know. I always knew it was possible. I was one of the >>>>> earliest supporters of manned flight if you recall. Truly amazing what >>>>> we Americans can do when we put our minds to it!" >>>> >>>> Why do you make up this sort of nonsense? >>>> >>>> More contempt. You are all about contempt. You must be very insecure >>>> to have such a need to mock. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Man, we have one of the meanest most contemptuous vindictive SOBs who >>> ever lived for a President. >> >> Have you researched all of them? >> >>> and lots of people love him, he wouldn't be >>> President if they didn't. He's careful to only say nice things about >>> certain types of people, though. >>> >>> Me? I'm just not that careful >> >> I just got a call from a Big Thinker in the semiconductor business, >> who ranted for half an hour about current events. He agrees with me, >> anyone who has spent their life in politics is long decoupled from >> reality, but DT has common sense and does good stuff, but should just >> keep his mouth shut more. But there is the alternate theory that DT is >> so smart, he knows exactly what he is doing. > >I don't let business associates/clients talk to me about any topic >that's not business or software or electronics for a half hour, much >less politics or current events. I politely stop them and say perfectly >honestly "I don't discuss these topics with clients it tends to be bad >for business. Everyone has opinions and we see them and talk about them >all the time elsewhere."I like this guy, and he's interesting, and he is very influential. He's fun to talk to. Can you afford to blow off important people? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
Am 20.06.20 um 01:29 schrieb Lasse Langwadt Christensen:> > isn't ARM mostly owned by Softbank, a Japanese company?Yes, it's a Japanese company. Gerhard
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On 2020-06-19 18:56, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:26:13 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 19/06/20 20:04, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:07:02 +0100, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19/06/20 18:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:57:42 +0100, Tom Gardner >>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 19/06/20 17:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human history, >>>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary... partly in the right area, but certainly >>>>>> not close enough for a cigar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, but close. >>>>>> >>>>>> UK court ruled that Edison infringed Swan's patent. >>>>>> US Patent Office also invalidated Edison's patent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> telegraph, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Not even close. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if we ignore the telegraphs proposed in the 17C and >>>>>> widely implemented during the Napoleonic wars, the first >>>>>> commercial long distance electric telegraph was installed >>>>>> in 1839 in the UK. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> airplanes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, not even close. >>>>>> >>>>>> First person to understand and demonstrate the principle >>>>>> of flight was Cayley. His first manned (well, boyed) flight >>>>>> was in 1949. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were many others, notably Otto Lilienthal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> triodes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Close. See Robert von Lieben. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> nuclear reactors, >>>>>> >>>>>> Arguable. Much of the inspiration and work was >>>>> >from European refugees. >>>>> >>>>> Bingo. Creative people come here so they can create stuff. >>>> >>>> The European refugees didn't have much choice >>>> about where they went. >>> >>> It's a pretty big world. But a lot of european scientists came, and >>> still come, to the USA. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The first industrial scale nuke was in England. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Shrug. >>>>> >>>>> If you shrug bbq ribs, you've never had good ones. >>>> >>>> Quite possibly, but it isn't earth shattering. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> But none of the other possible prior inventions went anywhere. >>>> >>>> The electric light bulb didn't go anywhere? >>>> The telegraph didn't go anywhere? >>>> Nukes didn't go anywhere? >> >> >>> The point is that these inventions flourished here. There are many >>> cases of likely prior art in europe, but that never went anywhere. >> >> Telegraph flourished in Europe first, and then was >> of key strategic importance in the British Empire. >> It flourished there too. >> >> >>> The >>> Homebrew Computer Club changed the world. >> >> So did the British, e.g. with the world's first commercial >> computer that was used, of all things, for ordering supplies >> for a chain of tea/coffee/cake shops back in 1951 (LEO 1 >> computer for the J Lyons & Co) > > What happened? With radar and code breaking machines and systems > operations from the war, England should have dominated electronics and > computers. > >> >> >>>>> Given that the US is about 5% of the planet's population, we sure >>>>> create a lot of stuff. And a lot of that stuff is created by amateurs. >>>> >>>> A lot? In the past yes, but not as much as you >>>> seem to imagine. >>>> >>>> Plus, of course, you've ignored all the things >>>> the Americans didn't develop. >>>> >>> >>> Europe seems to have slowed down a lot in invention, in the last maybe >>> 200 years. China and Japan don't invent a lot of new stuff either. The >>> Chinese are good at industrializing but don't invent much. >> >> For Europe, 50 years more like. >> >> China is rapidly improving in that respect, and westerners >> would be foolish to rest on their laurels. > > Nobody is resting. People keep inventing and building things. There is > no academic or government or financial institution to stop them. > >> >> >>> England had >>> scads of opportunities that were lost. >> >> Absolutely. That's been a running sore all my life. >> >> "King Rat" by James Clavell (based on his WW2 experience in >> Changi) comes close to illustrating why. >> >> Boris Johnson and co are the current illustration. >> Shortform: an unwarranted belief that good breeding is >> more important than competence. > > Yes. Is the class structure still very important? > > ARM is one success story, but it's a Chinese company now.Don't forget Morris and Mullards. ;( Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On 19/06/20 23:56, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:26:13 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 19/06/20 20:04, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:07:02 +0100, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19/06/20 18:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:57:42 +0100, Tom Gardner >>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 19/06/20 17:33, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human history, >>>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>>> >>>>>> Summary... partly in the right area, but certainly >>>>>> not close enough for a cigar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, but close. >>>>>> >>>>>> UK court ruled that Edison infringed Swan's patent. >>>>>> US Patent Office also invalidated Edison's patent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> telegraph, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Not even close. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if we ignore the telegraphs proposed in the 17C and >>>>>> widely implemented during the Napoleonic wars, the first >>>>>> commercial long distance electric telegraph was installed >>>>>> in 1839 in the UK. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> airplanes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, not even close. >>>>>> >>>>>> First person to understand and demonstrate the principle >>>>>> of flight was Cayley. His first manned (well, boyed) flight >>>>>> was in 1949. >>>>>> >>>>>> There were many others, notably Otto Lilienthal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> triodes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Close. See Robert von Lieben. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> nuclear reactors, >>>>>> >>>>>> Arguable. Much of the inspiration and work was >>>>> >from European refugees. >>>>> >>>>> Bingo. Creative people come here so they can create stuff. >>>> >>>> The European refugees didn't have much choice >>>> about where they went. >>> >>> It's a pretty big world. But a lot of european scientists came, and >>> still come, to the USA. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The first industrial scale nuke was in England. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Shrug. >>>>> >>>>> If you shrug bbq ribs, you've never had good ones. >>>> >>>> Quite possibly, but it isn't earth shattering. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> But none of the other possible prior inventions went anywhere. >>>> >>>> The electric light bulb didn't go anywhere? >>>> The telegraph didn't go anywhere? >>>> Nukes didn't go anywhere? >> >> >>> The point is that these inventions flourished here. There are many >>> cases of likely prior art in europe, but that never went anywhere. >> >> Telegraph flourished in Europe first, and then was >> of key strategic importance in the British Empire. >> It flourished there too. >> >> >>> The >>> Homebrew Computer Club changed the world. >> >> So did the British, e.g. with the world's first commercial >> computer that was used, of all things, for ordering supplies >> for a chain of tea/coffee/cake shops back in 1951 (LEO 1 >> computer for the J Lyons & Co) > > What happened? With radar and code breaking machines and systems > operations from the war, England should have dominated electronics and > computers.Part of it was that the US exacted a heavy price for its supplies. Essentially the US bankrupted us, and we didn't benefit from the Marshall Plan after the war. Part of it is the incompetence of the ruling classes.>> >>> England had >>> scads of opportunities that were lost. >> >> Absolutely. That's been a running sore all my life. >> >> "King Rat" by James Clavell (based on his WW2 experience in >> Changi) comes close to illustrating why. >> >> Boris Johnson and co are the current illustration. >> Shortform: an unwarranted belief that good breeding is >> more important than competence. > > Yes. Is the class structure still very important?Difficult to give a simple answer. The presumption and arrogance is still there, but there is less deference by the lower orders. That's not bad, except when the lack of deference spills over to everybody, usually accompanied by an barely articulated "my opinion is as good as yours". No, my opinion about medical options is not as good a doctor's. Nor is my doctors opinion about software safety as good as mine.> ARM is one success story, but it's a Chinese company now.Japanese. But there is an entertaining-from-a-distance spat with the top Chinese official. He's been sacked but is refusing to go :)> I've been told that class/caste structures inhibit India. Some classes > simply don't work with their hands. That's why they produce great > theorists but not so many inventors.Too simplistic, as is any statement about India. In general they have a strong concept of "my work", "not my work", and "your work".> Bell Labs (sadly missed) deliberately mixed up practical telephone > people with Nobel-class scientists. That was very fertile.Yes. That kind of thing can happen here too, but fundamental science and research is out of fashion.
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On 6/19/2020 8:16 PM, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 19:39:50 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 6/19/2020 6:11 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:24:05 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/19/2020 1:34 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:52:36 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:46 PM, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:26:04 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 12:03 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:47:00 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2020 9:49 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18/scientists-as-heroes-keep-that-image-public-eye/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's really scary, science as a path to fame, fortune, prizes, >>>>>>>>>>>> adoration from movie stars. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Justin Bieber's music videos have well over a billion views, he's more >>>>>>>>>>> famous than all scientists in the world put together. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the video for "Gagnam Style" by Psy has pushing 4 billion views alone; >>>>>>>>>>> more man-hours have been spent watching that one video than every >>>>>>>>>>> scientific documentary or lecture given by a scientist in human >>>>>>>>>>> history, >>>>>>>>>>> probably. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But musicians optimize their performance precisely to generate fame >>>>>>>>>> and fortune. When scientists do that, it grossly distorts the science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Americans tend to be vaguely anti-intellectual and elitist/deferential >>>>>>>>> to authority by nature; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That explains why we invented light bulbs, telegraph, telephone, >>>>>>>> airplanes, triodes, superhets, transistors, ICs, lasers, nuclear >>>>>>>> reactors, bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those tended to be invented by individual Americans they weren't some >>>>>>> collective effort. I'm sure a large fraction of the US population >>>>>>> thought airplanes were straight nonsense until they saw one in the air, >>>>>>> and that seemed to be the opinion of the popular press as well. >>>>>>> Ridiculous, a total theoretical impossibility! some guy who wasn't an >>>>>>> aeronautical scientist or engineer might say. oh. would you look at that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whomever invented BBQ ribs was probably told by many of his compatriots >>>>>>> "That'll never sell..." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And then after they saw one millions of the same Americans told their >>>>>> friends "Well. you know. I always knew it was possible. I was one of the >>>>>> earliest supporters of manned flight if you recall. Truly amazing what >>>>>> we Americans can do when we put our minds to it!" >>>>> >>>>> Why do you make up this sort of nonsense? >>>>> >>>>> More contempt. You are all about contempt. You must be very insecure >>>>> to have such a need to mock. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Man, we have one of the meanest most contemptuous vindictive SOBs who >>>> ever lived for a President. >>> >>> Have you researched all of them? >>> >>>> and lots of people love him, he wouldn't be >>>> President if they didn't. He's careful to only say nice things about >>>> certain types of people, though. >>>> >>>> Me? I'm just not that careful >>> >>> I just got a call from a Big Thinker in the semiconductor business, >>> who ranted for half an hour about current events. He agrees with me, >>> anyone who has spent their life in politics is long decoupled from >>> reality, but DT has common sense and does good stuff, but should just >>> keep his mouth shut more. But there is the alternate theory that DT is >>> so smart, he knows exactly what he is doing. >> >> I don't let business associates/clients talk to me about any topic >> that's not business or software or electronics for a half hour, much >> less politics or current events. I politely stop them and say perfectly >> honestly "I don't discuss these topics with clients it tends to be bad >> for business. Everyone has opinions and we see them and talk about them >> all the time elsewhere." > > I like this guy, and he's interesting, and he is very influential. > He's fun to talk to.You said he ranted for a half-hour. That's not a "conversation." Perhaps you don't mean he continually talked for a half-hour. I hear "conversations" sometimes like that, people talking on cell phones, the other party's going on and on and the person on the phone is just saying "uh huh" "right I get that" "hmmm yeah" I could write a software to just automatically respond with audio clips of my voice for calls like that while I get something else done. That's an engineering solution!> Can you afford to blow off important people? >I don't blow anyone off, I'm not hanging up on them or such. I have my boundaries such as they are; if someone can't accept that I ask for a minimal amount of respect regarding them I know from experience they tend to be deadbeats regardless of how "important" they are or think they are. You think millionaires never stiff anyone on the bill?
