Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447305 > unrolled thread

experts aren't

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#447532

On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:49:38 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:46:36 PM UTC+11, tabby 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.


more pointless junk from slowman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447559

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:41:26 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:49:38 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:46:36 PM UTC+11, tabby 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.
>  
> more pointless junk from sloman.

There is a point to it, but one which NT doesn't want to recognise.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447625

On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:56:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:41:26 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:49:38 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:46:36 PM UTC+11, tabby 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:

> > > > > > There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Dr. Slowman 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.
> >  
> > more pointless junk from sloman.
> 
> There is a point to it, but one which NT doesn't want to recognise.

I have to accept he'll never grow up.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447631

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:14:00 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:56:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:41:26 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
> > > On Monday, 13 February 2017 02:49:38 UTC, bill....@ieee.org  wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:46:36 PM UTC+11, tabby 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:
> 
> > > > > > > There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Dr. Slowman 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.
> > >  
> > > more pointless junk from sloman.
> > 
> > There is a point to it, but one which NT doesn't want to recognise.
> 
> I have to accept he'll never grow up.

Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him, even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem to happen remarkably often).

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447666

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
 
> Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
> reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
> even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
> to happen remarkably often).

What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
of one, claiming that everyone *else* is either stupid or mentally ill. 
It never seems to occur to you that *you* are the one who's totally out 
of whack. This blindness to your own delusions is symptomatic of 
schizophrenia or some other perceptional disorder where the sufferer is 
totally unable to grasp the possibility - even fleetingly - that it's 
themselves wherein the problem lies. A normal person would question their 
own sanity, but you never do - and that tells us all we need to know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447673

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:22:17 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
> 
>> Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
>> reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
>> even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
>> to happen remarkably often).
>
>What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
>of one, claiming that everyone *else* is either stupid or mentally ill. 
>It never seems to occur to you that *you* are the one who's totally out 
>of whack. This blindness to your own delusions is symptomatic of 
>schizophrenia or some other perceptional disorder where the sufferer is 
>totally unable to grasp the possibility - even fleetingly - that it's 
>themselves wherein the problem lies. A normal person would question their 
>own sanity, but you never do - and that tells us all we need to know.

Give him a break. He obviously has some form of senior-itus.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447684

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:22:17 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
> > 
> >> Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
> >> reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
> >> even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
> >> to happen remarkably often).
> >
> >What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
> >of one, claiming that everyone *else* is either stupid or mentally ill. 
> >It never seems to occur to you that *you* are the one who's totally out 
> >of whack. This blindness to your own delusions is symptomatic of 
> >schizophrenia or some other perceptional disorder where the sufferer is 
> >totally unable to grasp the possibility - even fleetingly - that it's 
> >themselves wherein the problem lies. A normal person would question their 
> >own sanity, but you never do - and that tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Give him a break. He obviously has some form of senior-itus.
Right, I might agree him, but I skip over all the BS rants/wars.
I only stop and read what a few write.   
If everyone was talking about food or beer it might be different.  
  
George H.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> picosecond timing   precision measurement 
> 
> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
> http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447700

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:48:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:22:17 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
> > 
> >> Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
> >> reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
> >> even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
> >> to happen remarkably often).
> >
> >What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
> >of one, claiming that everyone *else* is either stupid or mentally ill. 
> >It never seems to occur to you that *you* are the one who's totally out 
> >of whack. This blindness to your own delusions is symptomatic of 
> >schizophrenia or some other perceptional disorder where the sufferer is 
> >totally unable to grasp the possibility - even fleetingly - that it's 
> >themselves wherein the problem lies. A normal person would question their 
> >own sanity, but you never do - and that tells us all we need to know.
> 
> Give him a break. He obviously has some form of senior-itus.

Whereas John Larkin was born gullible and self-admiring.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447690

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 2:24:12 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>  
> > Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
> > reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
> > even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
> > to happen remarkably often).
> 
> What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
> of one

No evidence of that.   No evidence of a minority on any particular point.
So, why make the claim?  There's no way to back up such a statement, it's just
trash talk.   And rude, and personal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447761

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 2:24:12 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>>  
>> > Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
>> > reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
>> > even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
>> > to happen remarkably often).
>> 
>> What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
>> of one
>
> No evidence of that.   No evidence of a minority on any particular point.
> So, why make the claim?  There's no way to back up such a statement, it's just
> trash talk.   And rude, and personal.

Agreed. A lot of what he says I agree with (and is not even
controversial in most settings). But I don't often have the energy to
engage in a 200 post back-and-forth on it. It is probably good that
someone does, assuming politics is on-topic now.


-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447699

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:24:12 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:21:00 -0800, bill.sloman wrote:
>  
> > Or, looking at it from a more grown-up point of view, NT is learning to
> > reconcile himself to the fact that some people don't agree with him,
> > even when he is perfectly convinced that he is correct (which does seem
> > to happen remarkably often).
> 
> What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority 
> of one, claiming that everyone *else* is either stupid or mentally ill.

This tends to refer to matters where only the stupid or mentally ill could have a contrary opinion. I'm bored and quixotic enough to point out that you are wrong. Entirely sane people don't tend to waste time arguing with nutters.
 
> It never seems to occur to you that *you* are the one who's totally out 
> of whack.

It's one of the hypotheses that I frequently entertain, and test for. That's why I post links to tolerably reliable sources from time to time. You don't. 

> This blindness to your own delusions is symptomatic of 
> schizophrenia or some other perceptional disorder where the sufferer is 
> totally unable to grasp the possibility - even fleetingly - that it's 
> themselves wherein the problem lies. 

Sure. Now think about your own behaviour.

> A normal person would question their 
> own sanity, but you never do - and that tells us all we need to know.

In fact I do. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the idea that I might be wrong, and if you search my posts for those containing the word "oops" you will find a few examples of my admitting being wrong.

Your problem is that you are the abnormal person here, with a depressing susceptibility for the kind of right wing nonsense that gets published by the Mail or pushed by Julian Barnes. You may find it comforting to think that I am the nutter here, rather than you, but it's another one of your delusions.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448282

Cursitor Doom wrote:
> What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority


    He would have been perfect to play the lead character on 'Gilligan's 
Island'. :(


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448283

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 1:41:10 PM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
> Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > What *does* seem to happen remarkably often is *you* being in a minority
>  
>     He would have been perfect to play the lead character on 'Gilligan's 
> Island'. :(

I wonder why Mike Terrell thinks that. He may have seen Bob Denver (who played the part) but he hasn't seen me. Presumably he likes to think that I am an amiable goof in real life, though that isn't the sort of qualification you need to be able to play one in even a rather unambitious TV show. 

Cursitor Doom's complaint seems to be that I'm the only poster quixotic enough to bother pointing out that Cursitor Doom is a gullible twit, but if Cursitor Doom was trifle more attentive about his critics he might have noticed that quite a few people find him contemptible.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447628

On 11/02/2017 18:59, John Larkin wrote:
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/01/government_industrial_strategy_is_not/

The jury is still out on graphene and its analogues.

No doubt they would have railed against the waste of money on lasers 
when no-one would ever be able to afford a pencil sized perfect ruby 
crystal and massive flashlights had they been around at the time.

The big problem with blue sky research is that you can never tell in 
advance which things will later prove to be very important.

There is no doubt that the UK government is lousy at picking industrial 
winners or patenting major academic inventions. They gave away radar, 
the jet engine and more recently monoclonal antibodies (the latter if it 
had been patented would easily have funded UK scientific research).

The place where things usually go awry is in the seedcorn stage going 
from a small startup to the first step on the global ladder. In the UK 
increasingly startups get bought up by global players to refund the 
initial investors with a quick profit before they can fully fledge. The 
profits then all go offshore - ARM holdings got done over last year by 
the weakened pound and London putting short term profit above long term 
investor gain and SOftBank now own them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36822272

> 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.

You like to believe that because it fits with your ignorant prejudice 
against knowledge and skills. The problem in the UK is that government 
is run by and for London and the South East - it has been government 
policy to maintain a huge north south divide in prosperity and jobs. 
That in part explains why the Brexit vote happened the way it did.

The irony being that the places that voted to leave were net 
beneficiaries of EU policy to help struggling economic regions.

> EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to
> work.

Plenty of electronics stuff doesn't and without software based 
simulations of modern electronic chip designs they would be almost 
impossible to fabricate with anything like acceptable yields.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447633

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 10:40:09 UTC, Martin Brown  wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 18:59, John Larkin wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> You like to believe that because it fits with your ignorant prejudice 
> against knowledge and skills.

Many of us believe it because we see over and over again the state of people practising in fields where we ourselves are experts. Standards in commerce are too often terrible.

> The problem in the UK is that government 
> is run by and for London and the South East - it has been government 
> policy to maintain a huge north south divide in prosperity and jobs. 

The main problem imho is a culture of valuing stupidity. As an example it's hard to find reasonable retail salespeople here, it's nearly always just brainless bull and near zero understanding of the products being sold.


> > EEs are usually right about our electronics, because our stuff has to
> > work.
> 
> Plenty of electronics stuff doesn't

I have encountered products that didn't do the job, but not very often. They normally get withdrawn from sale pretty quickly as the high level of returns make them instant lossmakers.


NT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447634

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:42:11 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 10:40:09 UTC, Martin Brown  wrote:
> > On 11/02/2017 18:59, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > You like to believe that because it fits with your ignorant prejudice 
> > against knowledge and skills.
> 
> Many of us believe it because we see over and over again the state of people practising in fields where we ourselves are experts. Standards in commerce are too often terrible.

About half the practitioners in any field are below average. Anybody looking  at other practitioners tends to concentrate on the stuff they've done in the particular sub-field where the inspecting practitioner is particularly expert. The fact that the problem that needed to be solved wasn't in that particular sub-field and consequently didn't need - and didn't get - a state-of-the-art solution tends to be less interesting and less obvious.
 
> > The problem in the UK is that government 
> > is run by and for London and the South East - it has been government 
> > policy to maintain a huge north south divide in prosperity and jobs. 
> 
> The main problem imho is a culture of valuing stupidity.

Nothing in UK culture values stupidity. Their tendency to make class-based judgements does put a lot of upper-class twits into jobs that they aren't all that good at, and bars competent people who have detectably lower-class accents or habits from top jobs. They don't actually value stupidity, but they don't put enough weight on competence when selecting people for particular jobs, and concentrate too much on having somebody who looks a lot like the last person who did the job.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-so-slow

Virginia Valian talks about why women are slow to get promoted to top jobs in the US, but much the same mechanisms block non-upper-class people from top jobs in the UK.

> As an example it's hard to find reasonable retail salespeople here, it's nearly always just brainless bull and near zero understanding of the products being sold.

Retail sales isn't a particularly well-paid job, nor rewarding in any other way.

Competent people sometimes do it for a while, until something better comes along, but they don't sell  much more than their less competent colleagues, and there's no pressure to pay them enough to keep them in the job.

<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447749

>"About half the practitioners in any field are below average. "

I know I normally do not respond to you, but I really had to thank you for the laugh. 

Do you know what the word "average" means ? 

LOL. Made my day from 16,000 km away. 

And the superiority complex to boot. It just don't get any better than this. 

Still got those less than human people on that island Crocodile Dundee ? Why don't you let them in your country, bunch of fucking bigots. 

Probably because you gave up your guns. But really, if you are stupid enough to give up your guns you are stupid enough that you should not have them anyway. But when those teenagers come and rape your kids, you will wish your Mommy government would have left them on that fucking island - to rot. 

Again, thanks for the laugh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447767

On 2017/02/15 8:56 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>> "About half the practitioners in any field are below average. "
>
> I know I normally do not respond to you, but I really had to thank you for the laugh.
>
> Do you know what the word "average" means ?
>
> LOL. Made my day from 16,000 km away.
>
> And the superiority complex to boot. It just don't get any better than this.
>
> Still got those less than human people on that island Crocodile Dundee ? Why don't you let them in your country, bunch of fucking bigots.
>
> Probably because you gave up your guns. But really, if you are stupid enough to give up your guns you are stupid enough that you should not have them anyway. But when those teenagers come and rape your kids, you will wish your Mommy government would have left them on that fucking island - to rot.
>
> Again, thanks for the laugh.
>

Have you ANY idea of what you are talking about? Australia is one of the 
least likely countries to be invaded and one of the easiest to defend.

If anything one should worry about the Aussies getting it into their 
noggins that the rest of the world is ripe for their pickings...Mad Max 
rules!

I wouldn't mess with them. They play with crocodiles...

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447772

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:35:55 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

>On 2017/02/15 8:56 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>>> "About half the practitioners in any field are below average. "
>>
>> I know I normally do not respond to you, but I really had to thank you for the laugh.
>>
>> Do you know what the word "average" means ?
>>
>> LOL. Made my day from 16,000 km away.
>>
>> And the superiority complex to boot. It just don't get any better than this.
>>
>> Still got those less than human people on that island Crocodile Dundee ? Why don't you let them in your country, bunch of fucking bigots.
>>
>> Probably because you gave up your guns. But really, if you are stupid enough to give up your guns you are stupid enough that you should not have them anyway. But when those teenagers come and rape your kids, you will wish your Mommy government would have left them on that fucking island - to rot.
>>
>> Again, thanks for the laugh.
>>
>
>Have you ANY idea of what you are talking about? Australia is one of the 
>least likely countries to be invaded and one of the easiest to defend.

What about the rabbits?


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447776

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:46:54 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:35:55 -0800, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 2017/02/15 8:56 AM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> "About half the practitioners in any field are below average. "
> >>
> >> I know I normally do not respond to you, but I really had to thank you for the laugh.
> >>
> >> Do you know what the word "average" means ?
> >>
> >> LOL. Made my day from 16,000 km away.
> >>
> >> And the superiority complex to boot. It just don't get any better than this.
> >>
> >> Still got those less than human people on that island Crocodile Dundee ? Why don't you let them in your country, bunch of fucking bigots.
> >>
> >> Probably because you gave up your guns. But really, if you are stupid enough to give up your guns you are stupid enough that you should not have them anyway. But when those teenagers come and rape your kids, you will wish your Mommy government would have left them on that fucking island - to rot.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks for the laugh.
> >>
> >
> >Have you ANY idea of what you are talking about? Australia is one of the 
> >least likely countries to be invaded and one of the easiest to defend.
> 
> What about the rabbits?
Grin... there are three "rabbit proof" fences strung across Western Australia. 
(one behind the other.)
George H. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
> picosecond timing   precision measurement 
> 
> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
> http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web