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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 18:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7o51q$81l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On 2/11/2017 1:59 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. I take it you are and *expert* on this expert theory? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 16:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4e030f9-af82-4625-b3e2-5ced341b048f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:00:03 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/ > > This aligns with the Black Swan concept Not entirely. Nicolas Nassim Taleb used the term to describe things that exist but haven't been registered. Ground-breaking research is looking for exactly that kind of Black Swan. The Register is complaining that the researchers are looking in the right place, mainly by ignoring those researchers who have found their Black Swans. > 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 fields of scientific study are subject to proof by experiment, though in the observational sciences this involves going out and looking for the effect that the theory predicts. Astronomy is a purely observational science, but they have extended the kind of things they look at a great deal. My favourite is astroseismology - finding out about the internal structure of stars by looking at the vibrations of their surfaces. > most experts are usually wrong, Most experts - here John Larkin means climate scientists - don't agree with the misinformation that John Larkin gets from the Murdoch media. John Larkin is the gullible twit here, but his egomania prevents him from recognising this obvious fact. > and most experts are even wronger than the average > truck driver, and more expertise makes them yet wronger. Happily John Larkin is wrong here, but it's not his expertise that's making him wrong, but rather his lack of it. > EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > work. John Larkin is terrified of getting special purpose transformers wound. This doesn't mean that his stuff doesn't work, but it can mean that it doesn't work as well as it might, or be as cheap as it could be. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 21:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6BSnA.2110$X9.171@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
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. > > Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. --or was that Pogo?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 04:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa7762aa-aa09-49a0-b69c-07e28b739e5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447376 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:42:33 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > 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. > > Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" > represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus > "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. > --or was that Pogo? It's well known, old and unhelpful. There are experts around, but people like John Larkin don't like what experts tell them. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 04:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6783d661-e96c-4175-b12c-3efaa9d0de3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447394 |
On Sunday, 12 February 2017 12:19:55 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:42:33 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > > 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. > > > > Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" > > represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus > > "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. > > --or was that Pogo? > > It's well known, old and unhelpful. There are experts around, but There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. I've watched so many experts not even bothering to do the basic fact finding, and people making assumptions, false arguments, not knowing their subject as well as they think and so on. The truth is only a minority can navigate successfully through all those minefields, and even when they do it still does not necessarily mean the conclusions are correct. Slowman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It reminds me of IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7pvsj$1r7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #447397 |
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:45:00 -0800, tabbypurr wrote: > Slowman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a > bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It > reminds me of IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers. Sloman is a fucking idiot. He understands maybe 5% of what he is told, then lectures others back on the other 95%. He's been spreading his silly old nonsense on this group for at least 18 years to my certain knowledge and only very rarely will he ever delve into the subject of electronics, which is the *only* field he excels in (so he tells us, anyway). If you enjoy long-running, pointless arguments against an opponent who is totally impervious to logic and reasoning, then Sloman's the very chap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 01:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7411d9a-bdde-440b-b321-972358a2c275@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447408 |
On Sunday, 12 February 2017 15:46:14 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:45:00 -0800, tabbypurr wrote: > > > Slowman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a > > bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It > > reminds me of IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers. > > Sloman is a fucking idiot. He understands maybe 5% of what he is told, > then lectures others back on the other 95%. He's been spreading his silly > old nonsense on this group for at least 18 years to my certain knowledge > and only very rarely will he ever delve into the subject of electronics, > which is the *only* field he excels in (so he tells us, anyway). > If you enjoy long-running, pointless arguments against an opponent who is > totally impervious to logic and reasoning, then Sloman's the very chap. Sorry to say it but I completely agree. Discussing with him is seldom a constructive process, and he's ever childish with it. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9220f6c1-6617-4121-8222-d38816c07348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447529 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:16:53 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 12 February 2017 15:46:14 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:45:00 -0800, tabbypurr wrote: > > > > > Sloman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a > > > bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It > > > reminds me of IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers. > > > > Sloman is a fucking idiot. He understands maybe 5% of what he is told, > > then lectures others back on the other 95%. He's been spreading his silly > > old nonsense on this group for at least 18 years to my certain knowledge > > and only very rarely will he ever delve into the subject of electronics, > > which is the *only* field he excels in (so he tells us, anyway). > > If you enjoy long-running, pointless arguments against an opponent who is > > totally impervious to logic and reasoning, then Sloman's the very chap. > > Sorry to say it but I completely agree. Discussing with him is seldom a constructive process, and he's ever childish with it. Anybody who finds themselves in complete agreement with Cursitor Doom needs to get themselves taken the to nearest institute for the feeble-minded. They shouldn't try to do it on their own - there's no telling where they might end up. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d391037e-f0f8-4e2a-a0f8-68c8c7bebdc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447408 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:46:14 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:45:00 -0800, tabbypurr wrote: > > > Sloman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a > > bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It > > reminds me of IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers. NT's idea that I put all experts on pedestals is rather strange. I've never seem them as an undifferentiated group, but NT's capacity to discriminate doesn't seem to be up to much, and he does seem to want to keep things simple. > Sloman is a fucking idiot. Cursitor Doom has a lot of silly ideas about a lot of subjects. This is more of the same. > He understands maybe 5% of what he is told, Cursitor Doom expects his nonsense to be understood to be true. If you point out that he is posting nonsense, he comforts himself with the idea that his brilliance hasn't been fully appreciated. > then lectures others back on the other 95%. Cursitor Doom fails to recognise that the he mostly gets stuff completely wrong. > He's been spreading his silly > old nonsense on this group for at least 18 years to my certain knowledge > and only very rarely will he ever delve into the subject of electronics, > which is the *only* field he excels in (so he tells us, anyway). Cursitor Doom doesn't know much about electronics outside of audio, so the rest of the field does go over his head. I've been posting here since 1996. There's a thread "Sync Manchester coding" with couple of contributions from me dated 14th March 1997. There's another "Looking for audio op-amp that works well with single supply. LM358?" with one dated 30th July 1996. I threw in the LT1006, LT1013 and LT1014. > If you enjoy long-running, pointless arguments against an opponent who is > totally impervious to logic and reasoning, then Sloman's the very chap. Be warned that Cursitor Doom's idea of "logic and reasoning" looks more like "reiterated assertion" to people who can actually manage either. Cursitor Doom - or Eeyore as he was back then - wasn't a valued contributor back then but he's now decayed into something that recycles twaddle from the Mail. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <823c243f-151d-442a-b5db-4b59c08bbcf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447397 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:45:09 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 12 February 2017 12:19:55 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:42:33 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" > > > represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus > > > "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. > > > --or was that Pogo? > > > > It's well known, old and unhelpful. There are experts around, but > > There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. I've watched so many experts not even bothering to do the basic fact finding, and people making assumptions, false arguments, not knowing their subject as well as they think and so on. The truth is only a minority can navigate successfully through all those minefields, and even when they do it still does not necessarily mean the conclusions are correct. > > Sloman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. Quite why NT thinks that I insist that all experts belong on pedestals escapes me. It may reflect the fact that NT can't cope with the complications of reality, and oversimplifies his claims to the sort of stuff he can imagine he understands. Climate science is full of experts. There are a bunch, most of whom work for unversities and meteorology institutes, who think that anthropogenic global warming is real and getting worse, and another bunch, many of whom get paid by the Heartlands Institute, who think that it isn't happening, and wouldn't be a bad thing if it were. Both groups carry on as if they were expert, and it takes some discrimination to detect which ones have got it wrong. John Larkin - and apparently NT - seem to think that the experts that are paid by the fossil fuel extraction industries are the ones that should be relied on. > It reminds me of IBM's claim that world only needed 5 computers. In 1980 we heard a similar claim from ITT-Creed marketeers, which was that there was a UK market for about 140 personal computers - the device we were working on at the time (as a telex replacement) was pretty much identical with the original IBM PC. In both cases the idea was that the computers would only be used for the jobs that computers were being used for at the time. The fact that a faster or cheaper computer might be used for different tasks didn't get into the computation. NT seems to think that all experts are created equal, and have an identical expertise. Reality is a little more complicated than that. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 01:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <981af4a1-3bce-4dc9-bed3-fe7171e5c6ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447506 |
On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:02:50 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:45:09 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > On Sunday, 12 February 2017 12:19:55 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:42:33 PM UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" > > > > represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus > > > > "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. > > > > --or was that Pogo? > > > > > > It's well known, old and unhelpful. There are experts around, but > > > > There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. I've watched so many experts not even bothering to do the basic fact finding, and people making assumptions, false arguments, not knowing their subject as well as they think and so on. The truth is only a minority can navigate successfully through all those minefields, and even when they do it still does not necessarily mean the conclusions are correct. > > > > Sloman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a bit at odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. > > Quite why NT thinks that I insist that all experts belong on pedestals escapes me. It may reflect the fact that NT can't cope with the complications of reality, and oversimplifies his claims to the sort of stuff he can imagine he understands. You put them on peddetals again and again in s.e.d, despite the obvious flaws. > Climate science is full of experts. There are a bunch, most of whom work for unversities and meteorology institutes, who think that anthropogenic global warming is real and getting worse, and another bunch, many of whom get paid by the Heartlands Institute, who think that it isn't happening, and wouldn't be a bad thing if it were. > > Both groups carry on as if they were expert, and it takes some discrimination to detect which ones have got it wrong. John Larkin - and apparently NT - seem to think that the experts that are paid by the fossil fuel extraction industries are the ones that should be relied on. yawn > > It reminds me of IBM's claim that world only needed 5 computers. > > In 1980 we heard a similar claim from ITT-Creed marketeers, which was that there was a UK market for about 140 personal computers - the device we were working on at the time (as a telex replacement) was pretty much identical with the original IBM PC. I expect there were far more Apple IIs in homes than that in 80. The IBM claim was - relatively - more reasonable given that at that time computers were multi-ton valve things. > In both cases the idea was that the computers would only be used for the jobs that computers were being used for at the time. The fact that a faster or cheaper computer might be used for different tasks didn't get into the computation. yes, another way experts get things wrong > NT seems to think that all experts are created equal, and have an identical expertise. Reality is a little more complicated than that. In the post quoted above I said the exact opposite. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02960b1f-4492-4fdc-8faf-cbd5b1ea8060@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447397 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:45:09 AM UTC-8, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. Aren't you an expert at SOMETHING? If you are, you'll know that lots of uninformed 'common sense' is around, and you'll know that expertise can do .. better. So, make the world a better place. Prefer informed opinion, 'expert opinion' because of the benefits of real expertise. And, don't think "it's only opinion", because it is NOT. It's "expert opinion", and is a lot pricier than "opinion" because it's worth it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 01:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21d85d5a-815d-44c6-a562-c29516d9478b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447517 |
On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:54:05 UTC, whit3rd wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:45:09 AM UTC-8, tabby wrote: > > There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. > > Aren't you an expert at SOMETHING? If you are, you'll know that lots of uninformed > 'common sense' is around, and you'll know that expertise can do .. better. Yes... sometimes. There are also plenty of 'painted' people that are thought to be experts. > So, make the world a better place. Prefer informed opinion, 'expert opinion' because > of the benefits of real expertise. And, don't think "it's only opinion", because it is > NOT. It's "expert opinion", and is a lot pricier than "opinion" because it's worth it. Sometimes yes. Sometimes it has negative value. Too many times for my liking. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e3dd549-3cf3-4b92-aff8-7d94424b147b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447533 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:45:33 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:54:05 UTC, whit3rd wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:45:09 AM UTC-8, tabby wrote: > > > > There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, hence many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and many are unable to see past that. > > > > Aren't you an expert at SOMETHING? If you are, you'll know that lots of > > uninformed 'common sense' is around, and you'll know that expertise can do > > .. better. > > Yes... sometimes. There are also plenty of 'painted' people that are thought to be experts. > > > So, make the world a better place. Prefer informed opinion, 'expert > > opinion' because of the benefits of real expertise. And, don't think "it's > > only opinion", because it is NOT. It's "expert opinion", and is a lot > > pricier than "opinion" because it's worth it. > > Sometimes yes. Sometimes it has negative value. Too many times for my liking. NT gets worried when people disagree with him. The idea that he might be wrong doesn't enter his mind, so they have to be wrong. If they are experts and disagree with him, it's because they aren't as expert as they are painted. Krw suffers from much the same problem, but has it in a slightly more advanced form. Anything krw "knows" not only has to be right but also has to be universally known to be right, so that anybody who disagrees with him isn't just wrong, but also deliberately lying, merely to get up his nose. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 00:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb24bfe7-1c05-47f6-ab5e-7a53e2d5849f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, 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. > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > > lunatic fringe electronics If it's a government run operation, they're wrong 99.999% of the time, ultra reliably wrong IOW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 04:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f8a0d84-2dbc-4c29-a8a8-4774457596d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447388 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:13:30 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, 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. > > If it's a government run operation, they're wrong 99.999% of the time, ultra reliably wrong IOW. Only because the politicians tell them what them what to say. The UK version was that experts should be on tap, not on top. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 03:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0afc80ff-c0bf-4247-be63-713e73ca1c2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447305 |
On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:00:03 UTC, 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. There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Mr. Slowman assumes. > EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to > work. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 04:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3757e7cb-19f3-434c-9ce3-364143b4ec61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447393 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:56:27 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:00:03 UTC, 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. > > There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Dr. Sloman assumes. Dr Sloman doesn't assume much, and he does know a lot more than NT (which isn't difficult to manage). John Larkin's main beef is with climate experts, who don't share the point of view about anthropogenic global pushed in the Murdoch media. John Larkin is a gullible sucker for every kind of denialist nonsense on the subject, but his inflated idea of his own capacities prevents him from recognising this all-to-obvious fact, and he has decided that climate experts aren't as expert as you'd expect widely published university staff to be. This may make him feel better, but it does add an additional layer of stupidity to what he posts on the subject. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 04:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed07ef17-7a82-4fd5-8c3e-73f8831cab5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447396 |
On Sunday, 12 February 2017 12:34:05 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:56:27 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:00:03 UTC, 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. > > > > There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Dr. Sloman assumes. junk snipped
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 18:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17a7ef93-3c69-40c8-9ae9-1eb3a4155b78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #447398 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:46:36 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, 12 February 2017 12:34:05 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:56:27 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote: > > > On Saturday, 11 February 2017 19:00:03 UTC, 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. > > > > > > There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Dr. Sloman assumes. > > junk snipped NT at his intellectual best. At least he included the correctly spelled version of my name and the right honorific, but he did fail to snip his own junk, and John Larkin's which is - if anything - even more content-free. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web