In this case, they were. The Wright's mistake was picking an architecture that was dynamically unstable, so needed a great deal of
channel-crosser had a more modern topology.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:57:05 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrot e:
adsorb the information , they are not likely to do any better the next time .
It really is the same crowd.
- again.
ver, which doesn't happen to be the case.
Actually it is the case. I have a pretty high IQ , but no where near some other people that I krow.
ut it's not a widely shared point of view. Insults have to be at least fain tly credible before they are worth posting, but you seem to be too dim to h ave realised this.
Actually a widely shared point of view is that you are dim.
the better indicator.
Hey I am not the one that said "John Larkin is as dim as Dan. SAT scores ar e like IQ test results - cheap and standardised and correlate tolerably wel l with university undergraduate performance, but a much worse indicator of real-world intelligence. " So a much worse indicator than what?
d skills".
ly enough to get and keep a job sets one hurdle. Getting a higher degree an d applying the knowledge acquired (mostly on how to acquire knowledge speci fic to a particular task) is probably a higher hurdle.
and standardised and correlate tolerably well with university undergraduat e performance, but a much worse indicator of real-world intelligence.
faked their way through them.
An even higher hurdle is making money.
I did some analysis of the advantages of getting a higher degree versus get ting a job and getting real world experience. And came to the conclusion it depended on the person. Bill Gates opted for real world experience ov er getting a degree. The same applies to Mark Zuckerberg. But Warren Buff et got the advanced degree. I decided to skip the advanced degree. I can think of a few cases where the advanced degree would have been the better c hoice for me, but I did pretty well without it.
Dan, Earth
detect when he is being suckered by denialist lies about anthropogenic cli mate change.
On 13/09/18 16:31, John Larkin wrote: .
The canard configuration, by itself, does not imply instability. The centre of gravity would have to be forward of the centre of lift of the combined airfoils for inherent stablity. I guess the Wright brothers may have chosen that configuration because both wings and canards must have positive lift. The tail section of common aircraft actually has negative lift, which is a bit of a blemish to the engineering mind.
Jeroen Belleman
ote:
t adsorb the information , they are not likely to do any better the next ti me.
How could you know? Google groups typically record three time as many views as posts on any given thread.
The citations for my 1996 Peltier thermostat paper didn't start until 1999, and I suspect that the first citations came from some Dutch lurkers that w ere never regular posters - "Measurement Science and Technology" is publish ed by the UK institute of physics and hasn't got great penetration.
t - again.
lever, which doesn't happen to be the case.
e other people that I krow.
But not clever enough to spell "know" correctly. And not clever enough to n otice that the point is that IQ doesn't correlate all that perfectly with c leverness.
but it's not a widely shared point of view. Insults have to be at least fa intly credible before they are worth posting, but you seem to be too dim to have realised this.
And your evidence for this claim is?
People even marginally cleverer than have worked out that arguing by unsupp orted assertion isn't a profitable exercise. It makes you look stupid.
is the better indicator.
are like IQ test results - cheap and standardised and correlate tolerably w ell with university undergraduate performance, but a much worse indicator o f real-world intelligence. " So a much worse indicator than what?
Posting a "reply" or - more accurately - a reassertion of the original dema nd before you've read the whole of the response isn't clever.
and skills".
ully enough to get and keep a job sets one hurdle. Getting a higher degree and applying the knowledge acquired (mostly on how to acquire knowledge spe cific to a particular task) is probably a higher hurdle.
This - in fact - an answer to your question. Not a complete answer, because there are lots of other - equally flawed - ways of demonstrating "cleverne ss", but good enough in context.
ap and standardised and correlate tolerably well with university undergradu ate performance, but a much worse indicator of real-world intelligence.
ve faked their way through them.
But there are lots of ways of making money which don't involve being clever . Buying the right lottery ticket can make you a lot of money, but it's not a clever investment. Making lots of money is frequently dependent on being in the right place at the right time, where moderate competence is all tha t's required to make a large profit.
etting a job and getting real world experience. And came to the conclusio n it depended on the person. Bill Gates opted for real world experience over getting a degree. The same applies to Mark Zuckerberg. But Warren Bu ffet got the advanced degree. I decided to skip the advanced degree. I ca n think of a few cases where the advanced degree would have been the better choice for me, but I did pretty well without it.
But you don't show any sign of the kind of intellectual interest that drive s people to get a higher degree. Many of the regular posters here have part icular interests that attract their attention when they come up. You don't seem to have any.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
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.