On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 2:03:52 AM UTC+10, jla...@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.This is a bit silly. Science is just as much a performance art as music. The difference is that scientists are mainly performing to impress other scientists. If they misrepresent their results in a way that gets newspaper attention, it doesn't impress the other scientists who decide whether they get promoted or not. John Larkin doesn't know much about science, and much of what he thinks he knows comes from climate change denial websites, who are in the business misrepresenting scientific data for profit. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
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 21:23:15 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>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.We talked. He talked more than I did. It was fine; he's really nice and really smart. I helped him get his PhD in control theory. He came up with some algorithms that saved billions in consumables on DUV lithography lasers. Phil knows him. We had a huge amount of fun together once, brainstorming some optics and physics.> >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?I think people should be tolerant and friendly and help one another. I think people are different, and that's good. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 3:17:17 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:40:44 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 19/06/20 17:03, 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. > > > >That would be a risk, but not necessarily a problem. > >There's no cause and effect there. > > Of course there is. The requirement to publish is part of the > fame-and-fortune thing. Some serious fraction of published > "scientific" research can't be reproduced.It is a problem in some fields, but one problem with scientific research is that you don't know what factors you need to control until you have done the research. Ostensibly identical experiments can produce different results, and that can lead you to find which bits of the experiments weren't actually identical, which can be very educational. These two papers https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.10.20097543v2.full.pdf https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091 give different results for the number of people who get Covid-19 (as certified by the CPR test) and don't exhibit any symptoms. The first says 15+/-3% at the 95% confidence level, and the second observed 104 out of 128 positive test results on a total of 217 people. The second comes from an Antarctic cruise ship, and most of the people who got infected seem to have got infected by eating food that was contaminated with virus particles, rather than breathing air contaminated with virus loaded droplets. This isn't a bug but rather a feature.> More than anything else, more than a need for truth, people seek > power. Economists and scientists aren't immune from that.Economists and scientists don't actually get power. They can get influence over people with power. The Chicago school monetarists definitely peddle nonsense that plays well with right-wing politicians. Scientists rarely work that way. Lysenko is the only example that comes to mind. The book "The Bell Curve" was marketed as science, but Charles Murray isn't a scientist and while Richard Herrnstein looked like a scientist (a professor of psychology at Harvard) he was a star pupil of B.F.Skinner which means that he had a rather high tolerance for pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the book did get savaged because it's scientific content was dire. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 3:11:59 AM UTC+10, jla...@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:<snip>> >> bbq ribs, and the Declaration of Independence. > > > >Shrug. > > If you shrug bbq ribs, you've never had good ones.Perhaps. But a bad idea is still a bad idea even when realised as well as it can be.> But none of the other possible prior inventions went anywhere. > > 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.Until recently, the US had a disproportionate share of the world's money, and the world's biggest domestic market. If you want to create stuff, you need to spend money, and that mostly comes from venture capitalists. The US has now got itself into a state where it is run for the benefit of the top 1% of the income distribution, which includes all the venture capitalists. If you grow up as part of bottom 99% of the income distribution you don't get as well educated as your contemporaries in other advanced industrial countries, and US venture capitalists are now tending to fund foreign inventions. A couple of Australia's more prominent technical whiz kids made their money with US venture capitalists, and are now in a position to fund local inventions. John Larkin does seem to think that the world doesn't change. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 2:01:38 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:07:20 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 19/06/20 15:50, Bill Sloman wrote: > >> On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 11:49:28 PM UTC+10, 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. > >> > >> As opposed to posing as an expert business-man on "The Apprentice"? > > > >Touché ! > > And far too predictable. Sloman is.Not that John Larkin seems to be able to predict the exact content of my posts. He can predict that he won't like them, but that reflects the fact that they don't flatter him as extravagantly as he feels is appropriate. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 19, 20202020-06-19
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:04:55 AM UTC+10, 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.The US used to have a uniquely large and wealthy domestic market. The European Union now offers a bigger domestic market, with equally high median incomes. Smart phones took off faster in Europe than they did in the US> There are many cases of likely prior art in europe, but that never went anywhere. The Homebrew Computer Club changed the world.Not really. My first home computer was a UK Amstrad PC - I had a founding subscription to Byte, and had been using computers at work since 1964, but what changed the world was people making and selling basically IBM personal computers more cheaply than IBM was willing to do.> >> 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.It has picked up again in the last few decades.> China and Japan don't invent a lot of new stuff either. The > Chinese are good at industrializing but don't invent much.The Chinese are careful with their inventions. If they invent something good, they don't want the US copying it.> England had scads of opportunities that were lost.They did okay with machine tools, railways and steam ships. Isambard Kingdom Brunel pioneered with the first trans-Atlantic steamer, and the first screw driven trans-Atlantic steamer. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 20, 20202020-06-20
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 8:52:50 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart wrote:> 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. > > I could be wrong, but Language meaning is not the strongest suit for Engineers.Engineering is all about communicating what works to the people who do the work. You do have to know what you are talking about to have anything useful to communicate, and you do have to have a decent appreciation of what words mean to other people to be able to do that.> 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_scienceThat's not what it says at all.> 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.Actually a *cited* peer-reviewed publication.> Even my son-in-law who has tenure at U of T in Power Engineering says. most of those papers are crap.True, but if they are crap, they don't get cited. In general, most of the literature, isn't crap, but merely not all that useful. According to Google Scholar, my most cited publication is a patent on an ultrasound scanner - with 41 citations - which only got submitted because I'd had to spend so much time explaining why a feature was "obvious" that it clearly wasn't obvious to those skilled in the art. I've got no idea why it gets cited. The millidegree temperature controller paper has 24 citations, and probably deserves them - it threw a number of useful tricks at a well-known problem. The next item down the list - "A fast and economical gated discriminator" - has five citations, and I've never been interested enough to work out why.> When I once applied to HP in Loveland Co. the requirement wasn't just papers published, but how many and which field the PhD's were in. Physics being the most respected.That's why I add "cited" to the peer-reviewed publication requirement. Without real-world feedback paper is just paper.> 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.Wrong. Science is all about publishing results in a form that other people can exploit. If you don't read the literature, you aren't in science, and if you haven't published something useful in the literature - useful enough for somebody else to read and cite - you haven't contributed to it. "Diligence in critical thought and finding solutions when none seem to exist" isn't confined to science. <snipped a horrible example of a politician with a background in science> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 20, 20202020-06-20
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 8:56:37 AM UTC+10, 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:<snip>> >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?I left in 1993, and it still seemed to create problems then.> 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.A whole lot of Indian circuit design theory explored two-transistor circuits. My suspicion was that the university departments involved didn't have the equipment budget to buy a third one. At the same time Russian academic papers were still discussing valve-based circuits - thermionic-tubes based circuit to Americans.> Bell Labs (sadly missed) deliberately mixed up practical telephone > people with Nobel-class scientists. That was very fertile.That isn't actually how the place worked. You may have read "The Idea Factory" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797471-the-idea-factory but I worked at the UK equivalent - EMI Central Research - for three years. There wasn't any "deliberate mixing" but there were lots of very smart people on the same site. I remember having a fascinating conversation with a guy from the Audio lab on the next floor up about a Christopher Longuet-Higgins paper on going from sound frequencies to musical notation. Somebody from the Audio lab had thought that they had proved that it couldn't be done a few years earlier. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 20, 20202020-06-20
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 11:59:13 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:23:15 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > >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: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Can you afford to blow off important people?Sometimes you have to.> >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? > > I think people should be tolerant and friendly and help one another. I > think people are different, and that's good.Of course John Larkin hasn't got much of an idea how they are different, and concentrates on the differences in time they are willing to spend flattering him. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●June 20, 20202020-06-20
On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:49:20 -0700) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <4cgpef95gf0q0tblgun6dvl3b98iqptnsb@4ax.com>:> >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 is good if people get interested in science. Making idols of some scientists is not so good, a typical example is Albert OneStone Politics, after WW2 Jews needed a bit of a hero, and OneStone's theory was 'proven' over and over again, to the point where if your thing conflicted with it you simply did not get published. Now OneSTone was a total failure, his 'theory' is just a bit of math that describes reality, but has been shown to break down, and you cannot PROVE a theory but can sure disprove it. I have read that OneStone's wife was a mathemagician, and he likely got his ideas from her, but did not give credit. Spooky action at a distance? Oh well. He never united graffiti with the other forces.. Anyways few hundred years ago if you mentioned the earth was not at the center of the universe but moving around the sun in Europe you were burned by the church. Being a scientist and right for a change is not always good for your health. Personally as far as Albert OneStone goes I think we need a break, I like Le Sage's theory of gravity as it at least proposes a mechanism, and am working on some experiment now that the Tritium decay has had its time. You start looking and the obvious 'If this effect is present WHY did nobody see it for what it is?' So I scan my memory, and hopla, somebody did notice and cause waves, reproducing that experiment failed however, then you think "buy WHY", and then there is that simple answer... then "how can I best measure this?" and then you find this: PhysRevLett.124.201801.pdf Detecting Light Dark Matter with Magnons - Physical Review ... google But US DOD already had a go with the one that my memory found.. is it classified? So Albert OneStone as a political puppet makes sense, any scientist standing next to the lying leader? Does it? What's the game now? Manipulation of people... an industry that uses looping around the earth to keep jobs for ever, some forces in the people somewhere must say enough, let's have some reality. All work in progress... Science is fun!
