Comments on the "head-in-sand" crowd....
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
Wow, a world-famous person "destroyed" some crazy nobody on Facebook who wrote a comment. I'm impressed.
Rowe is an idiot who just made things worse for himself depending on the ta rget audience. If the idiot is a climate change denier or espouses some oth er idiotic view of some other unrelated subject, people are not going to wa nt to even listen to him and will turn the channel. Atmospheric physics is not cosmology.
Bitrex, You are a known idiot on this newsgroup... even excluding matters politic. Are you too ignorant to realize? ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
I want to see Mike Rowe "destroy" a working quantum cosmologist with his erudite "Science was wrong before"-argument on the topic of black holes. That I'd pay to see.
Sounds good to me. If offered the choice I'd rather be the one idiot in a room full of smart people than the one smart person talking to a bunch of idiots for sure, because what kind of idiot associates with idiots?
That would be the idiotic idiot.
Jim Thompson share's krw's enthusiasm for using word "idiot" to denote "somebody who disagrees with him".
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks that only idiots could dispute his remarkably ill-informed view of the world, but he's wrong here, as he is on many other subjects.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
If lack of experience is claimed to be an unqualified virtue in politics, and habitual skepticism/rejection of claims made by experts an unqualified virtue in science, I'm curious why they shouldn't also be considered virtues in engineering. So far, no one has been able to explain the difference to me. But I was always a slow learner.
Indeed.
An older version of that in the UK was that someone with "the proper breeding" would prove to be more successful amateur than the local professional.
When I was a kid there were /many/ fictional characters like that.
Sherlock Holmes is one; IIRC not even a on-the-record employee of the police but always makes the right conclusion while they don't. As an official employee Lestrade's role is more-or-less to be wrong about everything.
Gumption, can-do attitude, and especially being born into the right class/knowing the right people make a fine substitute for study and experience. "Americans believe America is exceptional because it exists and it exists because it is exceptional" - de Tocqueville wrote something similar to that about America circa early 1800s.
The cynical but probably reductive view of why characters like that are pushed is that selling the fantasy that anyone can be anything they want to be "with the right attitude" is probably pretty profitable.
Some of the UK stuff was the exact opposite - you couldn't succeed without the right breeding.
The one I particularly remember was Dorothy L Sayer's Lord Peter Wimsey series. ISTR having the feeling that she was a snob sucking up to "the higher orders". There was too much deference back then.
Right, and conversely in the US, probably partly because of "historical reasons", it's the underdog/brilliant outsider/Good Will Hunting-type that shows up all the proper, stuffy suckups what THE TRUTH is.
"Consensus" is thought of as conspiracy. If a bunch of so-called experts agree on something that I don't agree with, the explanation must be that they do so to hide the truth from me/hold me back/make my life difficult. I mean why else would anyone do anything in life if it didn't relate to _me_ personally somehow
cs,
I think you've got Sherlock entirely wrong. His asset was logic, not breedi ng or class. We've all seen experienced employees screw things up due to fa ilure to think logically, and sometimes it's easy to see the solution despi te no experience in the field if you have logic on your side. Sherlock stan ds for and promotes philosophy, nothing else. In the 1800s it would be almo st inevitable that someone with such a skill would be well educated, so he was.
Contributors in this thread wish to pit experience against something else: the reality is that both win at different times. To claim that either one c ould never win is folly.
NT
And sometimes, in politics, the people just don't want the same old thing (hag).
Facebook and Twitter let all the idiots of the world post their dumb opinions, confident that all the other idiots, like the press, will notice and get worked up.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
What I don't get is that they want them (FB/Twit) to be leftist echo chambers. If that's what they want, let idiots chat with morons.
That's especially true of Twitter and the Trump tweets.
Jim Thompson and John Larkin have been doing this here for some twenty years now.
Happily, the press isn't interested in sci.electronics.design. If it were Jim's plans to start shooting his more leftist neighbours "when the US falls apart", as is happening now, would have upset his neighbours.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
But he's the President, and you're not.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.