scientists as superstars

On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:21:55 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<qsquef9445bs37no3th2cokha62p8gkcej@4ax.com>:

>>First to get murdered?
>
>Napoleon. The Kaiser. Hitler. Stalin. The Inquisition. Thousands of
>years of warfare. Famines. Slavery. 
>
>European Paradise.

Nothing to do with Europe, it is a human thing, a part of evolution.
Wars have a purpose.
Too much capitalism, erratic leaders, injustice and what have you
and the people will revolt, a leader will be chosen who advocates nuking the rest of the human species.
The best one will win.
US had north versus south, fought in many countries, the word is 'imperialism', is planning wars all over the place.
One outcome could be that Russia has the east coast and China the west coast....
I think we should be very happy and appreciate we had peace since 1945 here...
No Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, all US war games.


>Getting amazing stuff from Digikey and Amazon overnight.

I got some from ebay and Aliexpress... China basically.
Took a little longer but free shipping and often half the cost.
I even have a Xiaomi phone now, nice job they did.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 21:17:16 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> 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
>Within a year or two Einstein rewrote large swaths of physics. 
>QM, Thermo, space-time.... It's amazing in many ways.  
>(1905-6)
>
>George H. 

He made three mistakes.

He gave us E=MC2 but thought it couldn't be a practical source of
power.

He predicted stimulated emission but thought that thermodynamics
forbade a laser.

He included the "cosmological constant" in general relativitity, then
called it his greatest blunder, which it probably wasn't.

Four, if you count going into the refrigerator business.

A few people are just off-the-charts smart.




-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

  Claude Bernard
  

On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:21:55 -0700) it happened
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> <qsquef9445bs37no3th2cokha62p8gkcej@4ax.com>:
> 
> >>First to get murdered?
> >
> >Napoleon. The Kaiser. Hitler. Stalin. The Inquisition. Thousands of
> >years of warfare. Famines. Slavery. 
> >
> >European Paradise.
> 
> Nothing to do with Europe, it is a human thing, a part of evolution.
> Wars have a purpose.
> Too much capitalism,

Letting people freely, voluntarily trade goods and services at prices
and conditions they each find advantageous is the *problem*?

And a central authority forcing populations to buy goods and services
they do not want, at prices and conditions they find disadvantageous,
is the *solution*?

I hardly think so.  If you try to force me to buy something I simply
won't buy anything at all, or as little as humanly possible.  And I
certainly won't produce anything, not the tiniest bit more than absolutely
necessary.

And I think world experience over the past couple centuries shows that
people everywhere else feel roughly the same way.

> erratic leaders, injustice and what have you
> and...

But what is justice?  Does it not, fundamentally, include letting people
keep what they produce?  Those who work prosper, those who don't, don't?
Isn't that 'just?'  Or should the lazy man proper from the industrious
man's sweat?

'Justice' consists mostly of what the government does not allow
other people to do to *you.*

> the people will revolt, a leader will be chosen who advocates nuking the rest of the human species.

In our system there's no need to revolt--if you want more stuff
just work more, produce more, and trade whatever you do for the
stuff you want.  Or take life easy, relax, and get by with less.
Freedom.

The only reason to revolt is when you want to take *other* people's
stuff.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:21:55 -0700) it happened
>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>> <qsquef9445bs37no3th2cokha62p8gkcej@4ax.com>:
>> 
>> >>First to get murdered?
>> >
>> >Napoleon. The Kaiser. Hitler. Stalin. The Inquisition. Thousands of
>> >years of warfare. Famines. Slavery. 
>> >
>> >European Paradise.
>> 
>> Nothing to do with Europe, it is a human thing, a part of evolution.
>> Wars have a purpose.

Sure. To kill in mass quantities.

>> Too much capitalism,
>
>Letting people freely, voluntarily trade goods and services at prices
>and conditions they each find advantageous is the *problem*?
>
>And a central authority forcing populations to buy goods and services
>they do not want, at prices and conditions they find disadvantageous,
>is the *solution*?

I disagree! Economies controlled by central authorities make goods and
services unavailable, and make the population too poor to buy them
anyhow.

Venezuala as worker's paradise. V has more oil than anywhere else on
earth, but no electricity and no fuel and not much food. That sort of
thing takes real talent.

-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

<snipped > Bill Sloman, Sydney  who disagrees with common wisdom.

Scientists include experimentalists who mainly perform experiments to test hypotheses, and theoreticians who mainly develop models to explain existing data and predict new results.  

If the outcome benefits their employer towards and end-goal of the organization, there is no need to publish or patent it.  

I think the number of publications are just for bragging rights that promote external funding, salary and university profit even if many have no useful external value. I respect those who publish great volumes with productive outcomes are good scientists and those PhD's who are just proving they learned what others already know are just scientists-in-training. It's a learning exercise for beginner PhD.  Making it work in practical volumes with low defect rates is a much bigger challenge that requires experienced scientists.

In the 70's all engineers did was produce paper to instruct others to build and test it.  But then when it failed they had to fix the designs.  Every success is built on many failures unless you are brilliant. I worked with many brilliant Engineers, one who was studying to become a Rabbi. In 3 days he wrote all the code to test his motherboard with all the analog modem and digital inputs and outputs in loopback and it worked 1st time for fault detection and isolation functional testing.  I'd call him a great engineer and scientist.  (no publishing needed)

On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:07:23 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> Equations do not 'work', are a the best an estimate of reality.
> How freaking log have we now been seeing scientic papers ending with
> 'and this may being quantum computers much closer'
>  
> It is the experimenter that counts.

That's not the whole story, though.   The number of experimenters that
worked on perpetual motion was large, but the laws of thermodynamics
defeated them all.

There's no beating those equations.   Work with 'em, if you can,
there's no glory in futile defiance.

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 7:12:13 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:21:55 -0700) it happened
> > jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> > <qsquef9445bs37no3th2cokha62p8gkcej@4ax.com>:
> > 
> > >>First to get murdered?
> > >
> > >Napoleon. The Kaiser. Hitler. Stalin. The Inquisition. Thousands of
> > >years of warfare. Famines. Slavery. 
> > >
> > >European Paradise.
> > 
> > Nothing to do with Europe, it is a human thing, a part of evolution.
> > Wars have a purpose.
> > Too much capitalism,
> 
> Letting people freely, voluntarily trade goods and services at prices
> and conditions they each find advantageous is the *problem*?

As Adam Smith pointed out, the trick is stop the people cheating.

James Arthur likes the US system where people with lots of money have the political power to get trade unions treated as a form of cheating.
 
> And a central authority forcing populations to buy goods and services
> they do not want, at prices and conditions they find disadvantageous,
> is the *solution*?

That was the effect of taking the lead role of the party rather too far. Back in 1871 the international socialist movement pointed out that this was a bad idea, which didn't stop the USSR from adopting it and proving that it was a bad idea.

It's not a feature of democratic socialism, as practiced in place like Scandinavia, but James Arthur likes his simple - if misleading - arguments much to much to let facts get in the way of his exposition. 
 
<snipped irreleance>
 
> And I think world experience over the past couple centuries shows that
> people everywhere else feel roughly the same way.

Only when contemplated from James Arthur's carefully curated point of view.

> > erratic leaders, injustice and what have you
> > and...
> 
> But what is justice?  Does it not, fundamentally, include letting people
> keep what they produce?  Those who work prosper, those who don't, don't?

This rather ignores the situation of those who can't work - in the US because manufacturers have "off-shored" their work, and more generally when technological development has made their tediously acquired skills irrelevant.

> Isn't that 'just?'  Or should the lazy man proper from the industrious
> man's sweat?

Nobody "prospers" on social security, and laziness is not the usual reason that stops people from getting enough work to support themselves and their families.

> 'Justice' consists mostly of what the government does not allow
> other people to do to *you*.

As in suck you into an industry, then chuck you out when it's cheaper to off-shore that industry.
 
> > the people will revolt, a leader will be chosen who advocates nuking the rest of the human species.
> 
> In our system there's no need to revolt--if you want more stuff
> just work more, produce more, and trade whatever you do for the
> stuff you want.  Or take life easy, relax, and get by with less.
> Freedom.

Except that you end up needing an expensive education if you want to work at all, and that expensive education can become valueless overnight if somebody works out how to get a machine to do the same job.
 
> The only reason to revolt is when you want to take *other* people's
> stuff.

Far from it. There are all sorts of ways of running society unfairly, and taking other peoples stuff is just the one that worries James Arthur - to the exclusion of everything else.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 7:28:56 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:21:55 -0700) it happened
> >> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> >> <qsquef9445bs37no3th2cokha62p8gkcej@4ax.com>:
> >> 
> >> >>First to get murdered?
> >> >
> >> >Napoleon. The Kaiser. Hitler. Stalin. The Inquisition. Thousands of
> >> >years of warfare. Famines. Slavery. 
> >> >
> >> >European Paradise.
> >> 
> >> Nothing to do with Europe, it is a human thing, a part of evolution.
> >> Wars have a purpose.
> 
> Sure. To kill in mass quantities.

It is an incidental feature. Wars are mostly about acquiring territory and resources, or hanging onto them.
 
<snip>
 
> Venezuala as worker's paradise.

It's a failed state, that currently call itself socialist. It's about as far from a worker's paradise as you can get. John Larkin and James Arthur are delighted when failed states call themselves socialist - it saves them from having to explain what's wrong with democratic socialist countries (like those in Scandinavia) which is a much more difficult task since most of them work rather than the US.

> V has more oil than anywhere else on earth, but no electricity and no fuel and not much food. That sort of thing takes real talent.

Actually it takes persistent capitalist exploitation of the resources by a limited number of people with a lot of capital, who can leave (with most of their capital) when the country finally falls apart. One has to wonder where Donald Trump plans to retire to when he's finally completely trashed the US.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 10:20:12 AM UTC+10, Anthony Stewart wrote:
> <snipped > Bill Sloman, Sydney  who disagrees with common wisdom.
> 
> Scientists include experimentalists who mainly perform experiments to test hypotheses, and theoreticians who mainly develop models to explain existing data and predict new results.

Theory does tend to drive experiment. If you don't suspect something might be going on, you don't look for it.  
 
> If the outcome benefits their employer towards and end-goal of the organization, there is no need to publish or patent it.

Not from the short-term profit perspective.  
 
> I think the number of publications are just for bragging rights that promote external funding, salary and university profit even if many have no useful external value.

Science rewards good publications, but the question of whether a publication is good isn't instantly obvious. There was an appreciable gap between the dsicovery of penicillin and the realisation that it could be mass produced as a useful antibiotic.

> I respect those who publish great volumes with productive outcomes are good scientists and those PhD's who are just proving they learned what others already know are just scientists-in-training.

You are supposed to do original work to get a Ph.D. Graduate students are scientist-in-training, but they do real science (on the cheap) while they are getting trained.

> It's a learning exercise for beginner PhD.  Making it work in practical volumes with low defect rates is a much bigger challenge that requires experienced scientists.

That doesn't come into it. Ph.D.students are supervised to make sure that they don't get stuff wrong.
 
> In the 70's all engineers did was produce paper to instruct others to build and test it.  But then when it failed they had to fix the designs.  Every success is built on many failures unless you are brilliant. I worked with many brilliant Engineers, one who was studying to become a Rabbi. In 3 days he wrote all the code to test his motherboard with all the analog modem and digital inputs and outputs in loopback and it worked 1st time for fault detection and isolation functional testing.  I'd call him a great engineer and scientist.  (no publishing needed).

You might, but you would be wrong. Publication is central to science, and if you don't know the published literature in your field, you aren't doing science.

Engineering is getting stuff to work. Science is knowing how it works, and seeing it in the context of the other similar stuff that also works in that area.

William Whewell seems to have coined the word "science" in 1834 at the time when organisations like the Royal Society were formnalising the process of publishing scientific papers. You need to read a bit more history.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:12:07 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
<1b656bcd-8837-4424-8d0c-e3542283ffcbo@googlegroups.com>:



>Letting people freely, voluntarily trade goods and services at prices
>and conditions they each find advantageous is the *problem*?
>
>And a central authority forcing populations to buy goods and services
>they do not want, at prices and conditions they find disadvantageous,
>is the *solution*?


US already has close control over what is sold (standards),
a legal system that hits back if stuff does not work as advertised,
etc etc, what side of the road to drive on, what emissions are allowed,
what money you can use, where you go via cellphone monitoring,
what you eat, and taxes, I repeat TAXES, oh and TAXES, and do not
forget value added TAXES, and
where you are allowed to go (for example not to free Cuba) ..



>I hardly think

Not much I can  do about that :-)


>so.  If you try to force me to buy something I simply
>won't buy anything at all, or as little as humanly possible.  And I
>certainly won't produce anything, not the tiniest bit more than absolutely
>necessary.
>
>And I think world experience over the past couple centuries shows that
>people everywhere else feel roughly the same way.




>> erratic leaders, injustice and what have you
>> and...
>
>But what is justice?  Does it not, fundamentally, include letting people
>keep what they produce?


Many years ago I did see a picture in what was it some photo magazine,
it showed IIRC a farmer on his land, written under it:
 .. working his land that he owns   for a while ..

So look a bit further than your own purse and the world you 'own'
belongs not to you but to your children:  the next generation.
 
>Those who work prosper, those who don't, don't?
>Isn't that 'just?'  Or should the lazy man proper from the industrious
>man's sweat?

Sometimes the most criminal and fake are the richest <reference donald, not only his 'university', even his fortune is fake>. 



>'Justice' consists mostly of what the government does not allow
>other people to do to *you.*
>
>> the people will revolt, a leader will be chosen who advocates nuking the rest of the human species.
>
>In our system there's no need to revolt--

Did you follow the news lately????



>if you want more stuff
>just work more, produce more, and trade whatever you do for the
>stuff you want.  Or take life easy, relax, and get by with less.
>Freedom.

Happiness is not about having 'more stuff'.
Look how sad and frustrated donald is.


>The only reason to revolt is when you want to take *other* people's
>stuff.

There can be many reasons....