OT: Proudly Ignorant!

Yes, though what that explains I'm not sure.

NT

Kindle book ordered. Thanks!

Some are more willing to cheat than others. It works better in the short term than the long term, and Dale Carnegie's advice was all about the short term.

A sale or business deal is, among other things, a social interaction. Social animals benefit from their interactions, and you can be part of that mutual benefit, or be a detriment to society.

When dealing with people you'll meet again, don't be a detriment (there's social consequences). That's because humans are both social animals, AND fast learners.

Though a bit dated now, I enjoyed Gleik's "Chaos" book too.

George H.

Me neither. In fact some people intensely dislike their given names and prefer to be addressed by Mr. Mrs., or even their nickname. So using that technique can sometimes fail spectacularly. But on the whole, that book is amazing. Essential reading for all diplomats, I'd say.

It means, do what works. If talking to a customer about golf, or his kids, or something like that helps the relationship, and you don't want to do that, you might lose the business to someone who does.

A lot of the world's business apparently takes place on golf courses.

That's not what he was about at all. One of the key phrases I recall from reading that book (decades ago now) was that you should lavish the other person with "sincere and hearty approbation" - the inclusion of the word "sincere" clearly suggests that phoney, calculated blandishments are

Nope. THIS bloke, Joe Girrard, taught people how to sell in this notorious best selling book:

Now that really does illustrate cut-throat, utterly unprincipled manipulation.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I just remembered! The Bible!!! There - I do know one book and it only took me 3 days to come up with it! ;->

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

You might have said The Art of Electronics.

I think he did in that this is a use group about electronics and The Art of Electronics is pretty much the Bible of electronics.

Dan

of Electronics is pretty much the Bible of electronics.

Not strictly true. "The Art of Electronics" was written as text book for cl ass on electronics for physicists at Harvard, and teaches physicists a lot more electronics than they'd get if they were left to their own devices.

The "Review of Scientific Instruments" has published enough bad electronics to make it perfectly clear how inept physicists can be if left to their ow n devices.

As it happens, physicists aren't the only people who need electronics, and there are quite a few bibles around for other people with other interests.

Ralph Morrison's "Grounding and Shielding Techniques" comes to mind. The co py on my bookshelf is the fourth edition, published in 1998. As a graduate student I learnt a lot from the first edition, published in 1967, and I mad e sure I had access to copy at every place I worked, until I got rich enoug h to buy my own, and mean enough to keep my copy where the junior engineers couldn't borrow it.

The 1967 edition was called "Grounding and Shielding Techniques in Instrume ntation" and was biased towards stuff you needed to know to build electroni cs that would work in an industrial environment (which some physicists end up learning).

Duh, humor is seldom strictly true.

Dan

Sometimes humour is truer than some peoples' "truth" :( "Many a truth is spoken in jest" etc.

Art of Electronics is pretty much the Bible of electronics.

r class on electronics for physicists at Harvard, and teaches physicists a lot more electronics than they'd get if they were left to their own devices .

And you aren't great at detecting it.

Snipping most of a post without marking the snip isn't all that clever eith er. It effectively distorts what was originally said - text-chopping - and in this case took out the marginally comic bits. Some of the comedy comes f rom the fact that I was trained as physical chemist (not quite a physicist) and Win Hill bailed out of Ph.D. in chemical physics (which would have mad e him a kind of physicist, if he'd been silly enough to carry on, as I was) .

It has three Testaments, and the Bible only has two.

A fourth is planned, too!

It is interesting that good physicists are often terrible circuit designers. I'm working now with a senior scientist at a big laser company who loves circuit design but cheerfully admits that he's awful at it.

I respect people that are aware that their expertise in one domain doesn't necessarily translate to other domains.

When interviewing people (and companies) I always push harder and harder into areas where they /ought/ to say "I don't know" (or "no"). If they do get to that point /then/ I will have some trust in their other statements.

Mind you, there are counterexamples. One of the best electronic engineers I knew only had a 1 year "conversion MSc" from his biochemistry background. You would recognise his surname, since he had two Nobel prize winners as forebears!

I always listened to him, /particularly/ when he disagreed with me :)

One other thing I've noticed is that chemistry undergraduates seem to make very good programmers.

PhD chemists, in my limited experience, are horrible circuit designers.