Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447305 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-11 10:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-14 20:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 10:59 -0800
Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-11 19:14 +0000
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 11:28 -0800
Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:07 -0500
Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 18:53 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-11 15:08 -0800
Re: experts aren't djlocher56@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 14:21 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:16 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 17:20 -0800
Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 12:50 +0000
Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 13:51 +0000
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-13 08:25 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 17:16 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
Re: experts aren't Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:49 -0800
Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 17:19 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-11 17:39 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 16:36 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 12:27 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 10:52 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:28 +0000
Re: experts aren't Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:05 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:25 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:39 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:23 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 12:40 -0500
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:59 +0000
Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:17 -0500
Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 18:54 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:05 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-11 17:09 -0800
Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:33 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 18:32 -0800
Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:50 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:11 -0500
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:22 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:32 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:44 -0500
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 13:11 -0800
Re: experts aren't bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-12 16:34 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 17:10 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 16:57 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:58 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:36 +0000
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 08:36 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:44 +0000
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 12:38 -0800
Re: experts aren't Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:43 +0000
Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 19:24 -0500
Re: experts aren't Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:53 +0000
Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 20:18 -0500
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 17:27 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:28 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:26 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:29 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 17:43 -0800
Re: experts aren't rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:02 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 16:43 -0800
Re: experts aren't Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-02-11 21:42 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:19 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 04:45 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:44 +0000
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:16 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:42 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:02 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:38 -0800
Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 18:54 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:45 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:52 -0800
Re: experts aren't bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 00:13 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:23 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 03:56 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 04:33 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 04:46 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:49 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 01:41 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-13 07:55 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 01:13 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 03:21 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-14 22:22 +0000
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-14 14:48 -0800
Re: experts aren't George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-14 17:09 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 19:22 -0800
Re: experts aren't whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:56 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-15 18:05 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 19:21 -0800
Re: experts aren't "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 21:41 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 19:05 -0800
Re: experts aren't Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 10:40 +0000
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 03:42 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 04:14 -0800
Re: experts aren't jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-15 08:56 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 10:35 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-15 10:46 -0800
Re: experts aren't George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-15 11:38 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 12:18 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 15:51 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 16:26 -0800
Re: experts aren't krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-15 20:59 -0500
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 20:01 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 15:43 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-15 16:38 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-15 19:38 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:25 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-17 21:47 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:49 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 05:13 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:39 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 18:12 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-18 11:43 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:52 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:17 +0000
Re: experts aren't M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-18 16:46 -0500
Re: experts aren't Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-19 05:35 +0000
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 02:15 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 03:28 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-19 03:31 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 09:23 -0800
Re: experts aren't Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-20 00:31 +0000
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 17:31 -0800
Re: experts aren't tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 13:43 -0800
Re: experts aren't John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-14 07:08 -0800
Re: experts aren't bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-14 20:07 -0800
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 10:59 -0800 |
| Subject | experts aren't |
| Message-ID | <60nu9c916reeui8gbsj3ddinq2nsok98e5@4ax.com> |
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ This aligns with the Black Swan concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to work. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <poJnA.642490$Zf5.639071@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! People are people, whether they are in the state sector or private sector. > and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare > fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts > are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average > truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. > > EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > work. Ditto software engineers, because that also has to work. (Except for all the counter-examples)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <92pu9ch249j8jgcr3ci4q2525jef3u8kid@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447306 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >> >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > >Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and social trends. Possibly worse. > >People are people, whether they are in the state >sector or private sector. > > >> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >> >> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >> work. > >Ditto software engineers, because that also has >to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 18:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7o5cm$df6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447307 |
On 2/11/2017 2:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >> >> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. Good thing electronic companies never have any financial failures. >> People are people, whether they are in the state >> sector or private sector. >> >> >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >>> >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >>> work. >> >> Ditto software engineers, because that also has >> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. Too bad the review and fix thing doesn't seem to work for logical thinking. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7t8v9c9vvs9uglofl99qfjdt7o9ad1oq65@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447325 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:07:48 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2/11/2017 2:28 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>> >>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! >> >> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There >> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > >Good thing electronic companies never have any financial failures. > > >>> People are people, whether they are in the state >>> sector or private sector. >>> >>> >>>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >>>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >>>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >>>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >>>> >>>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >>>> work. >>> >>> Ditto software engineers, because that also has >>> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) >> >> Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I >> finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost >> gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. >> >> Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst >> bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the >> internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. > >Too bad the review and fix thing doesn't seem to work for logical thinking. No, the Internet is not a fix for logical thinking. Evidence, Twitter, FaceBook and the Democratic Party.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <BsqdncT4P-L9BALFnZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #447307 |
On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >> >> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. True: Trump Airlines Trump Vodka Trump Steaks Trump University Trump Mortgage Trump Casinos Trump Magazine GoTrump.com Trump Ice The New Jersey Generals Tour de Trump Trump On The Ocean The Trump Network Trumped! (talk radio) > > But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and > social trends. Possibly worse. I'd have to agree, certainly, if the 'businessman' cited above is involved. > >> >> People are people, whether they are in the state >> sector or private sector. >> >> >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >>> >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >>> work. >> >> Ditto software engineers, because that also has >> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. > A popular expression in the repair industry is "Don't let the magic smoke out". John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djlocher56@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <303c8a60-e946-454e-b1b2-d54f77ea4e3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447326 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:08:24 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote: > On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > >>> > >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > >> > >> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > > True: > > Trump Airlines > Trump Vodka > Trump Steaks > Trump University > Trump Mortgage > Trump Casinos > Trump Magazine > GoTrump.com > Trump Ice > The New Jersey Generals > Tour de Trump > Trump On The Ocean > The Trump Network > Trumped! (talk radio) > > > > > > But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and > > social trends. Possibly worse. > > I'd have to agree, certainly, if the 'businessman' cited above is involved. > > > > >> > >> People are people, whether they are in the state > >> sector or private sector. > >> > >> > >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare > >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts > >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average > >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. > >>> > >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > >>> work. > >> > >> Ditto software engineers, because that also has > >> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. > > > > A popular expression in the repair industry is "Don't let the magic > smoke out". > > John One business that Trump has excelled at is the Trump trolling Company. he has millions of customers on the left side of the political spectrum. He gets them hook-line and sinker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4c16a319-be67-46eb-9613-673bedd80388@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447468 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:22:00 AM UTC+11, djloc...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 6:08:24 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote: > > On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > > > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > > >>> > > >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > > >> > > >> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > > > > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > > > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > > > > True: > > > > Trump Airlines > > Trump Vodka > > Trump Steaks > > Trump University > > Trump Mortgage > > Trump Casinos > > Trump Magazine > > GoTrump.com > > Trump Ice > > The New Jersey Generals > > Tour de Trump > > Trump On The Ocean > > The Trump Network > > Trumped! (talk radio) > > > > > > > > > > But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and > > > social trends. Possibly worse. > > > > I'd have to agree, certainly, if the 'businessman' cited above is involved. > > > > > > > >> > > >> People are people, whether they are in the state > > >> sector or private sector. > > >> > > >> > > >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare > > >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts > > >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average > > >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. > > >>> > > >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > > >>> work. > > >> > > >> Ditto software engineers, because that also has > > >> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > > > > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > > > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > > > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > > > > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > > > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > > > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. > > > > > > > A popular expression in the repair industry is "Don't let the magic > > smoke out". > > > > John > > One business that Trump has excelled at is the Trump trolling Company. he has millions of customers on the left side of the political spectrum. He gets them hook-line and sinker But he does use rather expensive bait. Getting into bed with Putin isn't a cheap provocation. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 17:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kc22acte3jn1dai2n340it33hi39j8rc1u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447326 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote: >On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>> >>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! >> >> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There >> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > >True: > >Trump Airlines >Trump Vodka >Trump Steaks >Trump University >Trump Mortgage >Trump Casinos >Trump Magazine >GoTrump.com >Trump Ice >The New Jersey Generals >Tour de Trump >Trump On The Ocean >The Trump Network >Trumped! (talk radio) > > But he's a billionaire, and you're not. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FYhoA.936461$eY3.898725@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #447499 |
On 13/02/17 01:20, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>>> >>>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! >>> >>> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There >>> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. >> >> True: >> >> Trump Airlines >> Trump Vodka >> Trump Steaks >> Trump University >> Trump Mortgage >> Trump Casinos >> Trump Magazine >> GoTrump.com >> Trump Ice >> The New Jersey Generals >> Tour de Trump >> Trump On The Ocean >> The Trump Network >> Trumped! (talk radio) >> >> > > But he's a billionaire, and you're not. True (I presume!), but that doesn't change the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zRioA.316184$he2.163130@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #447499 |
On 13/02/17 01:20, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> > wrote: > >> On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>>> >>>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! >>> >>> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There >>> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. >> >> True: >> >> Trump Airlines >> Trump Vodka >> Trump Steaks >> Trump University >> Trump Mortgage >> Trump Casinos >> Trump Magazine >> GoTrump.com >> Trump Ice >> The New Jersey Generals >> Tour de Trump >> Trump On The Ocean >> The Trump Network >> Trumped! (talk radio) >> >> > > But he's a billionaire, and you're not. Simple observations... Government failures are very public; quite right too. Corporate failures can be (and are) swept under the carpet; OK, shrug. Businessmen/businesses that want to take over state activities and profit from them can and do lie about what they will achieve. Quite /wrong/ too. In the UK private enterprise can be significantly worse than the state. There are far too many examples in the UK of low-bidders that have simply walked away from such "enterprises" and handed them back to the state. /Today's/ news: privatised prison has holes in fences, inmates have balaclavas and wirecutters(!), alarms don't work. Employment training consisted of colouring in cartoons of Peppa Pig. So many drugs that a prison /officer/ passed out from the fumes! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38931580
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19n3aclbkn6h205i8uda2ajlij71hthbtr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447541 |
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:51:27 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 13/02/17 01:20, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>>>> >>>>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! >>>> >>>> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There >>>> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. >>> >>> True: >>> >>> Trump Airlines >>> Trump Vodka >>> Trump Steaks >>> Trump University >>> Trump Mortgage >>> Trump Casinos >>> Trump Magazine >>> GoTrump.com >>> Trump Ice >>> The New Jersey Generals >>> Tour de Trump >>> Trump On The Ocean >>> The Trump Network >>> Trumped! (talk radio) >>> >>> >> >> But he's a billionaire, and you're not. > >Simple observations... > >Government failures are very public; quite >right too. > >Corporate failures can be (and are) swept >under the carpet; OK, shrug. Less than half of our product designs turn out to be profitable. I read somewhere that 19 out of 20 breakfast cereal introductions are failures. One insulation against bankrupcy is to hedge your bets with lots of other bets. So, design lots of stuff. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 17:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c573e20a-3aeb-4f65-91dd-74193a007602@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447564 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:25:52 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:51:27 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 13/02/17 01:20, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > >>>> > >>>> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > >>>> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > >>> > >>> True: > >>> > >>> Trump Airlines > >>> Trump Vodka > >>> Trump Steaks > >>> Trump University > >>> Trump Mortgage > >>> Trump Casinos > >>> Trump Magazine > >>> GoTrump.com > >>> Trump Ice > >>> The New Jersey Generals > >>> Tour de Trump > >>> Trump On The Ocean > >>> The Trump Network > >>> Trumped! (talk radio) > >>> > >>> > >> > >> But he's a billionaire, and you're not. > > > >Simple observations... > > > >Government failures are very public; quite > >right too. > > > >Corporate failures can be (and are) swept > >under the carpet; OK, shrug. > > Less than half of our product designs turn out to be profitable. I > read somewhere that 19 out of 20 breakfast cereal introductions are > failures. One insulation against bankrupcy is to hedge your bets with > lots of other bets. > > So, design lots of stuff. Another strategy is to design less stuff, but design it better, and for a better researched market. Your strategy sounds rather like the rural marksman who painted the targets around the bullet-hole (for those bullets that had hit anything). -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c00af36-9467-44f2-98ca-d4a5c9d380de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447499 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:20:23 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> > wrote: > > >On 2017/02/11 11:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > >>> > >>> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > >> > >> But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > >> is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > > > >True: > > > >Trump Airlines > >Trump Vodka > >Trump Steaks > >Trump University > >Trump Mortgage > >Trump Casinos > >Trump Magazine > >GoTrump.com > >Trump Ice > >The New Jersey Generals > >Tour de Trump > >Trump On The Ocean > >The Trump Network > >Trumped! (talk radio) > > > > But he's a billionaire, and you're not. He claims to be a billionaire, but none of the journalists who concoct lists of rich people think that he is actually as rich as he likes to claim. The one consistent thing about Trump is that he lies to make himself look good, and he certainly lies about how wealthy he is. He did inherit about $200 million dollars from his father, which did give him a flying start. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XeNnA.296807$dT1.137926@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #447307 |
On 11/02/17 19:28, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >> >> Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. > > But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and > social trends. Possibly worse. As I said below :) >> People are people, whether they are in the state >> sector or private sector. >> >> >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >>> >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >>> work. >> >> Ditto software engineers, because that also has >> to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. I wish! If only! Read http://thedailywtf.com for light entertainment, or comp.risks (*everybody* should read that because of its high signal to noise ratio over the decades)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6aa41bf9-f677-4998-b3f7-9485d9d78887@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447307 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:29:03 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > >> > >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > > > >Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. The American car industry is still there, despite a depressing lack of enthusiasm for making compact cars, and a depressing tendency to make them progressively bigger when they did make them. > But corps are no better than dartboards at predicting economic and > social trends. Possibly worse. Unlikely. > >People are people, whether they are in the state > >sector or private sector. > > > >> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare > >> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts > >> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average > >> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. > >> > >> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > >> work. > > > >Ditto software engineers, because that also has > >to work. (Except for all the counter-examples) > > Stuff that truly doesn't work will get bad reviews on Amazon. I > finally got my new TP-Link giant-antenna wi-fi box to work; I almost > gave up and trashed them on Amazon. The instructions are awful. > > Buggy stuff gets field feedback, or terrible reviews, and the worst > bugs usually get fixed. That's one sorta good thing about the > internet... widespread public reviews, and bug fix hints. But quite few of the bad reviews are posted by people who haven't got a clue about what they are doing. They aren't experts, and the typical problem is that they had a bad theory about what's going on and keep on doing the wrong thing in consequence. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 17:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02167704-f9c6-4f45-9f7c-1be89122bedc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447307 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:29:03 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:14:30 +0000, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 11/02/17 18:59, John Larkin wrote: > >> > >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > > > >Shrug. A lot of corporate strategy is even worse! > > But at least really bad corporations are killed in the market. There > is some experimental verification of corporate strategy. Circular reasoning: a corporate failure means 'it was bad', and conclude that nothing was lost. The Roman Empire failed, and LOTS was lost for many centuries. Social Darwinism is another dead theory with similarly dismal predictive value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <soMnA.1855$Rm6.729@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On 02/11/2017 01:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > > This aligns with the Black Swan concept > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory > > https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan > > and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare > fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts > are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average > truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. > > EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > work. > > Would the non-John Larkin expert who's ever right about anything please stand up? <crickets> Well. Glad that's settled
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <k1bv9cp36o3geu3g68vgt8fv6o2b53ueka@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #447321 |
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:39:18 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 02/11/2017 01:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >> >> This aligns with the Black Swan concept >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory >> >> https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan >> >> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >> >> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >> work. >> >> > >Would the non-John Larkin expert who's ever right about anything please >stand up? When designing things, I try to assume that I'm wrong as much as possible. The alternatitive is to invent some klunky architecture and shift asap into implememtation mode. Many people dislike uncertainty, so get the creative phase over as soon as they can. We like to wallow in confusion for a while at the start of a project. We have a 10-layer board that's almost done, and it just ocurred to us - duh - that an octal DAC and some traces and resistors could really open up possibilities. I've got to go in on Monday and tell the layout guy. > ><crickets> > >Well. Glad that's settled You should read the book. The guy thinks all over the place and is very funny. This is typical: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Black_Swan_1.JPG The book is full of great observations. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IW0oA.7585$b%6.4533@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #447340 |
On 02/11/2017 07:36 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:39:18 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On 02/11/2017 01:59 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ >>> >>> This aligns with the Black Swan concept >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory >>> >>> https://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486838879&sr=8-2&keywords=black+swan >>> >>> and, he notes modestly, my general theory that, except in the rare >>> fields of study that are subject to proof by experiment, most experts >>> are usually wrong, and most experts are even wronger than the average >>> truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. >>> >>> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to >>> work. >>> >>> >> >> Would the non-John Larkin expert who's ever right about anything please >> stand up? > > When designing things, I try to assume that I'm wrong as much as > possible. The alternatitive is to invent some klunky architecture and > shift asap into implememtation mode. Many people dislike uncertainty, > so get the creative phase over as soon as they can. We like to wallow > in confusion for a while at the start of a project. > > We have a 10-layer board that's almost done, and it just ocurred to us > - duh - that an octal DAC and some traces and resistors could really > open up possibilities. I've got to go in on Monday and tell the layout > guy. I told my girlfriend (an English major) "You know, it's good to have people around who are willing to criticize and poke holes in the things you think are good. That's how you get better at stuff..." She said "Well, I guess that's understandable. So long as the criticisms are constructive and it's not all hostile n stuff..." And I'm like "Heh, heh heh, ha ha ha ha ha ha aahh." >> >> <crickets> >> >> Well. Glad that's settled > > You should read the book. The guy thinks all over the place and is > very funny. > > This is typical: > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53724080/Black_Swan_1.JPG > > The book is full of great observations. > > Is it as packed-full of stereotypes as that page is? Because that page is...really packed full of a lot of stereotypes. "Assign them to those happy to be paid by the hour" ah, maybe "happy to not starve by being paid by the hour" would be a more honest assessment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web