"Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices"

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only ~1/2 way
through but enjoying it.

George h.

Good intuition and experience 'might' make me choose the right one at the startoff.
And then, combine that with good engineering and simulation and soldering and ....

But don't commit too soon. It's best to stay confused for a few days.

It's also very helpful to talk to someone else about a circuit
concept. I just did that, and the results were good, if hard to draw.





Klaus
--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each one
probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can explore
the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on the planet,
in your sleep.


Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only ~1/2 way
through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by Myles.

It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So far most
of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our brain can be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then I find
he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe it is that I enjoy
thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many useful and insightful ideas,
so I would recommend it.

George H.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each one
probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can explore
the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on the planet,
in your sleep.

Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only ~1/2 way
through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by Myles.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6b6e2b0d-7b33-49db-99cc-9a32ba55efdc@googlegroups.com:

The question isn't so much whether it's true as whether it's
relevant to anything. You like boasting about your prowess at
pool, and talk about whenever you think you have an opportunity.

You fucking retard. It was related to the topic of the thread
branch, dipshit.

No vision whatsoever... that's you.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:6b6e2b0d-7b33-49db-
99cc-9a32ba55efdc@googlegroups.com:

> more or less

You are more or less an abject idiot. I say more.

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news0nk6fti9roacfa018ulo1q5h3nkojo4b8@4ax.com:

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each
one
probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can explore
the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on the
planet,
in your sleep.

Einstein said his greatest 'revelations' came while in meditation.

That is a waking endeavor.

You explore nothing real in your sleep. Dream analyses prove that.

All the big geniuses claim they were inspired through meditation.

Everything one ever wanted to know is out there.

Hear about those folks who became a super genius or became super
skilled at something after a sharp knock on the head?

Makes one wonder just how tall that apple tree was.

I have wondered just how many head knocked great contributors to
the world being a better place there have been throughout time.

 

George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5cbef066-7ad7-413b-b75f-3cd800ed853d@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com
wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If
you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an
engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try
them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for
hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to
start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't
simulate them all. You can sleep on it and let your brain
evaluate the 1e7 solutions and pick a few good ones to
simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each
one probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can
explore the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on
the planet, in your sleep.


Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only
~1/2 way through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by
Myles.
It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So far
most of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our brain can
be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then I
find he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe it is
that I enjoy thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many useful and
insightful ideas, so I would recommend it.

George H.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct
over Reason"

People tell me I shoot too hard in pool.

I always have said that I explore the fringes of the physics of the
shot. So I feel that anyone who does not explore those limits does
not learn the full gamut required to make them a good shooter (and
they have no business critiquing on it at that point). I shoot super
soft shots and I shoot shots where the ball literally flies to the
pocket in mid air. I shoot the fool gamut. There are exactly zero
practice strokes in my shots. My shots are executed in uaually less
than 10 seconds each. Don't turn your back or you'll claim I
cheated. I shoot banks more often than my straight shots on some
racks. Taking too long to shoot contributes to loss of confidence.

 

I shoot the fool gamut....i like it. I think you coined a new phrase

 

[John Larkin]

On 11 Mar 2020 07:55:50 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

On 11 Mar 2020 06:28:32 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote...

There are other ways of predicting what a circuit will do,
and you can - in principle - create you own Spice models of
parts which better reflect what they do in the circumstances
in which you wish to use them.

I like to make small SPICE models of parts, derived from
analytical expressions of a few critical things that're
going on in the aspect of the circuit I'm evaluating.

For example, consider an op-amp driving a power MOSFET to
create a controlled current source. The FET's high gate
capacitance, along with the bootstrapped source resistor,
creates a confusing control loop. My RIS-796, a 250-amp
LED pulser project, uses this. If you want, sets of files:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tcmiahzzughadfk/AABtgFDy01cuTDWDRjujP6jva?dl=1

In AoE x-Chapter 4x.26, we struggled and derived a set of
analytical equations for this circuit. See article here.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o4g4mhzl70rsi9t/4x.26_MOSFET_CS_nodal-
analysis_final.pdf?
dl=1

The circuit basis for the equations uses the MOSFET's gm,
equation id = gm (vg-vs), and its gate capacitance, Ciss.
The equations are hairy. But we also suggest you can make
a simple SPICE circuit with the op-amp, the FET's id and
Ciss, plus additional Rs and Cs, to evaluate the circuit.

Such a scheme may only works well over a limited range of
conditions, e.g., using the value for gm at the FET's 250A
current, means that the reduced-current startup won't be
accurately modeled. But it's still quick and useful. And
you can repeat the SPICE run, with lower values of gm, to
get an idea of what's happening during the pulse startup.

Nearly all interesting systems are nonlinear, and analytic
equations are hard or impossible for nonlinear systems.

So the math becomes guidance, suggestions or starting
points for simulation or experiment.

In the case of an op-amp driving a FET, at low currents the
circuit will be slower, OK, but the pulse quickly moves past
that to the high current. So making sure the loop is stable
at high currents, and checking response is most of the game.

Lots of simple stuff, opamps and voltage dividers and filters, can be
designed with math, and one can be confident that they will work. More
interesting stuff, fast things and nonlinear things, need simulation
and then physical verification. Device models can be awful, so neither
math nor sims are predictive. People leave out wire bond inductance.
Substrate diode models can be flat wrong. Thermal effects are hard to
model. And sometimes a circuit on a PCB needs a full 3D em simulation.
I'd rather solder.

Here's my 20 volt pulse, 10V into 50 ohms.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aln3x5i3k30hhwm/T577C_20V_Filtered_3-12-2020.jpg?raw=1

This is rev C of my GaN pulser, and the last rev enabled a ton of
soldering, fiddling, and filter testing to make a clean pulse. I think
I finally got it right a half hour ago. I deserve a donut. Initial
simulations were just a starting point, and not very accurate.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 2:07:15 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5cbef066-7ad7-413b-b75f-3cd800ed853d@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com
wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If
you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an
engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try
them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for
hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to
start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't
simulate them all. You can sleep on it and let your brain
evaluate the 1e7 solutions and pick a few good ones to
simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each
one probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can
explore the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on
the planet, in your sleep.


Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only
~1/2 way through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by
Myles.
It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So far
most of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our brain can
be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then I
find he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe it is
that I enjoy thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many useful and
insightful ideas, so I would recommend it.

George H.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct
over Reason"



People tell me I shoot too hard in pool.

I always have said that I explore the fringes of the physics of the
shot. So I feel that anyone who does not explore those limits does
not learn the full gamut required to make them a good shooter (and
they have no business critiquing on it at that point). I shoot super
soft shots and I shoot shots where the ball literally flies to the
pocket in mid air. I shoot the fool gamut. There are exactly zero
practice strokes in my shots. My shots are executed in uaually less
than 10 seconds each. Don't turn your back or you'll claim I
cheated. I shoot banks more often than my straight shots on some
racks. Taking too long to shoot contributes to loss of confidence.

Oh, I think he (D. Kahneman) talks about this.. but maybe it was
someone else. But for various athletes performing at
their peak, they often report that the (slow) thinking part of the brain is
apart/detached from the whole process... like an outside observer...
thinking too much ruins your game.

George H.
(I remember reading a tennis book in the ~70's that said the
same thing.)

It is well known that muscle coordination does not require conscious thought. It happens through the nerve bundles (I forget the term for them) in the spine. This is the basis of muscle memory which is a real thing, only it doesn't literally happen in the muscles.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5cbef066-7ad7-413b-b75f-3cd800ed853d@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com
wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If
you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an
engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try
them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for
hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to
start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't
simulate them all. You can sleep on it and let your brain
evaluate the 1e7 solutions and pick a few good ones to
simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each
one probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own. You can
explore the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on
the planet, in your sleep.


Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only
~1/2 way through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by
Myles.
It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So far
most of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our brain can
be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then I
find he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe it is
that I enjoy thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many useful and
insightful ideas, so I would recommend it.

George H.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct
over Reason"



People tell me I shoot too hard in pool.

I always have said that I explore the fringes of the physics of the
shot. So I feel that anyone who does not explore those limits does
not learn the full gamut required to make them a good shooter (and
they have no business critiquing on it at that point). I shoot super
soft shots and I shoot shots where the ball literally flies to the
pocket in mid air. I shoot the fool gamut. There are exactly zero
practice strokes in my shots. My shots are executed in uaually less
than 10 seconds each. Don't turn your back or you'll claim I
cheated. I shoot banks more often than my straight shots on some
racks. Taking too long to shoot contributes to loss of confidence.

Oh, I think he (D. Kahneman) talks about this.. but maybe it was
someone else. But for various athletes performing at
their peak, they often report that the (slow) thinking part of the brain is
apart/detached from the whole process... like an outside observer...
thinking too much ruins your game.

George H.
(I remember reading a tennis book in the ~70's that said the
same thing.)

 

bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote in news:32b52c34-b170-4278-ac65-
bb8b0a69c2c7@googlegroups.com:

I shoot the fool gamut....i like it. I think you coined a new
phrase

It was a while ago.

It should have been my 123rd moniker.

Only one now, but I had a bunch, all Identifiable to me, and all
for humorous purpose.

Yet some dopes in here went off calling me a troll, yet I never hid
my ID, they always knew it was me, and if the post is looked at, the
moniker I posted with many times relates.

'Fool Gamut' sounds like a good band name.

Nice little Usenet moniker too... "I like it!" --Robocop

"I'd buy that for a dollar!" --also Robocop

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d899f1a7-855a-49bf-b740-8a4b11b8759b@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 2:07:15 PM UTC-4, George Herold
wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 1:07:54 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decaden
ce.org wrote:
George Herold <ggherold@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5cbef066-7ad7-413b-b75f-3cd800ed853d@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 12:03:31 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John
Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT),
buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are
doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an
artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could
try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate
for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine
where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't
simulate them all. You can sleep on it and let your brain
evaluate the 1e7 solutions and pick a few good ones to
simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my
brain if fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel,
each one probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own.
You can explore the solution space faster that all the
supercomputers on the planet, in your sleep.


Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm
only ~1/2 way through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches"
by Myles.
It's interesting. But seems a bit repetitive at times. So
far most of it is about how the fast (intuitive) part of our
brain can be mislead.

It's a bit of an interactive book with questions... and then
I find he's treating me as not as smart as I am... or maybe
it is that I enjoy thinking 'slow' about stuff. Anyway many
useful and insightful ideas, so I would recommend it.

George H.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of
Instinct over Reason"



People tell me I shoot too hard in pool.

I always have said that I explore the fringes of the physics
of the

shot. So I feel that anyone who does not explore those limits
does not learn the full gamut required to make them a good
shooter (and they have no business critiquing on it at that
point). I shoot super

soft shots and I shoot shots where the ball literally flies to
the pocket in mid air. I shoot the fool gamut. There are
exactly zero practice strokes in my shots. My shots are
executed in uaually less than 10 seconds each. Don't turn your
back or you'll claim I cheated. I shoot banks more often than
my straight shots on some racks. Taking too long to shoot
contributes to loss of confidence.

Oh, I think he (D. Kahneman) talks about this.. but maybe it was
someone else. But for various athletes performing at
their peak, they often report that the (slow) thinking part of
the brain
is
apart/detached from the whole process... like an outside
observer... thinking too much ruins your game.

George H.
(I remember reading a tennis book in the ~70's that said the
same thing.)

It is well known that muscle coordination does not require
conscious thought. It happens through the nerve bundles (I forget
the term for them) in the spine. This is the basis of muscle
memory which is a real thing, only it doesn't literally happen in
the muscles.

I call the fact that I can hit the exact 0.25 degree accuracy
required shot traversing 11 feet of table to the EXACT spot it need
to go to to be made... Each and every time...


The Harlem Globe Trotter Effect.

I give all credit to Jesus, because were it not for him, God would
have tossed us into the lake of fire a couple millennia ago.

So shooting hard or easy... I just stay calm, and shoot what I
know, which is almost all of it.

Then I watched those fuckers in Britain playing Snooooooker. Those
silly bastards know how to roll the cue ball AFTER the shot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 3:03:31 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT), buecherk@gmail.com wrote:


Engineering involves thinking about what you are doing. If you rely only on intuition you are an artist, not an engineer.

No. No good efficient engineering without intuition.

There are 37 possible solutions to my problem. I could try them one by one and finish in 2027. I could simulate for hours, do analysis and calculations, to determine where to start.

There might be 1e7 solutions to your problem. You can't simulate them
all. You can sleep on it and let your brain evaluate the 1e7 solutions
and pick a few good ones to simulate.

Yeah I think that is sorta my picture... as I sleep my brain if
fiddling with different possible solutions.

You have trillions of brain cells that can work in parallel, each one
probably a pretty good quantum computer on its own.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776484/

Suzana Herculano-Houzel says that it's only 86 billion.

Roger Penrose has claimed that neurones are quantum computers, but nobody takes him seriously - they are bit warm for any quantum state to last long enough to be useful.

> You can explore the solution space faster that all the supercomputers on the planet, in your sleep.

Or so John Larkin imagines.If his brain was that good he'd be less of a sucker for climate change denial propaganda.

Have you read "Thinking Fast and Slow" by D. Kahneman. I'm only ~1/2 way
through but enjoying it.

No. Is it good? I'm just about to start "The Night Witches" by Myles.

It was a best-seller, and Kahneman shared a Nobel Prize for the work it popularises. The work was observational science, so John Larkin won't take it seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:21:36 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Bessemer's motivation? Possibly profit. He made some astute business
maneuvers suggesting so. And the innovation and the cheap steel that
resulted certainly wouldn't have happened in a socialist country,
without that profit motive. (And think of the loss to humanity,
think of the world today without cheap steel...)

But personally, like some of us, I think Bessemer did it because
he was having a blast.

Hi James, I agree. Oh I put an asterisk on sailing, cause I
was recently looking at Kai Lenny and his hydrofoil surfboards.
Again I assume he's doing it for fun and not profit.
(though life is great when profit can follow your fun :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px88XsARHwc
(one of many videos)

George H.

Thanks George, that was awesome. I'm forwarding that YouTube
psychically to my dear brother Jeffrey, surfing fanatic, presently
hunting the perfect wave somewhere in Alpha Centauri or beyond.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[George Herold]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:06:12 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:21:36 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Bessemer's motivation? Possibly profit. He made some astute business
maneuvers suggesting so. And the innovation and the cheap steel that
resulted certainly wouldn't have happened in a socialist country,
without that profit motive. (And think of the loss to humanity,
think of the world today without cheap steel...)

But personally, like some of us, I think Bessemer did it because
he was having a blast.

Hi James, I agree. Oh I put an asterisk on sailing, cause I
was recently looking at Kai Lenny and his hydrofoil surfboards.
Again I assume he's doing it for fun and not profit.
(though life is great when profit can follow your fun :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px88XsARHwc
(one of many videos)

George H.

Thanks George, that was awesome. I'm forwarding that YouTube
psychically to my dear brother Jeffrey, surfing fanatic, presently
hunting the perfect wave somewhere in Alpha Centauri or beyond.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Oh I knew nothing about it till listening to an E. Weinstein
podcast with Kai Lenny.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kast-media-2/the-portal-2/e/67684598

They are still finding these big waves all over the globe...
One off the coast of Portugal.
He might like the podcast.

George H.

 

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 12:24:56 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:06:12 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 3:21:36 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Bessemer's motivation? Possibly profit. He made some astute business
maneuvers suggesting so. And the innovation and the cheap steel that
resulted certainly wouldn't have happened in a socialist country,
without that profit motive. (And think of the loss to humanity,
think of the world today without cheap steel...)

But personally, like some of us, I think Bessemer did it because
he was having a blast.

Hi James, I agree. Oh I put an asterisk on sailing, cause I
was recently looking at Kai Lenny and his hydrofoil surfboards.
Again I assume he's doing it for fun and not profit.
(though life is great when profit can follow your fun :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px88XsARHwc
(one of many videos)

George H.

Thanks George, that was awesome. I'm forwarding that YouTube
psychically to my dear brother Jeffrey, surfing fanatic, presently
hunting the perfect wave somewhere in Alpha Centauri or beyond.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Oh I knew nothing about it till listening to an E. Weinstein
podcast with Kai Lenny.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kast-media-2/the-portal-2/e/67684598

They are still finding these big waves all over the globe...
One off the coast of Portugal.
He might like the podcast.

George H.

He might well but I'm afraid Jeffrey's out of podcast range,
having traded this earthly dominion for other worlds this past
Dec. 3rd, 2016. Sorely missed.

With best regards,
James

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 5:16:43 AM UTC-7, Phil Allison wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:

[about " Everybody has intuition."]

Intuitions is just "fast thinking",

** Completely wrong.

Eg How about "female intuition" ??

--- getting to a quick conclusion and acting confused if asked 'why do you say that'
is an intuition scenario. Doesn't that sound like shortcut thinking? And, 'female intuition'?

Pretentious twits want to dress it up as some kind of divine inspiration, but it's just the built-in system we've got for turning experience into predictions.


** Turning everyday experience into predictions is what keeps people alive.

Not if you can't also carefully consider (or reconsider); fast action causes death of
innocents in police shootings, and the MH-17"accident" four years ago, and of
course the Iranian shoot-down of a Ukrainian aircraft a couple of months ago.

This, I think, refutes the 'keeps people alive' claim as regards intuition.
The natural, built-in system is a TERRIBLE replacement for a variety of
formal procedures that keep us alive. Chernobyl didn't seem intuitively
risky to the folk on the ground, until after the little explosion.

 

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd puked all over the shop:

----------------------------
Phil Allison wrote:
<>

Intuitions is just "fast thinking",

** Completely wrong.

Eg How about "female intuition" ??


--- getting to a quick conclusion and acting confused if asked 'why do you say that' is an intuition scenario.

** But only one of them.

> Doesn't that sound like shortcut thinking?

** Exactly what people do all day long, when there is no time to do anything else.

> And, 'female intuition'?

** Claimed to be a special kind of insight possessed by women.

Never heard of it ?

** Turning everyday experience into predictions is what keeps people alive.

Not if you can't also carefully consider (or reconsider);

** No what I meant.

More like what you do when crossing a street full of traffic.

fast action causes death of
innocents in police shootings, and the MH-17"accident" four years ago, and of course the Iranian shoot-down of a Ukrainian aircraft a couple of months ago.

** Huh ? You drunk or on mind expanding drugs ?



> This, I think, refutes the 'keeps people alive' claim as regards intuition.

** My god you fucking are !

Cannot be plain senile, like old fart Bill.

Wot fucking idiot post you just made..



.... Phil

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:87fb2901-2b63-48a2-ba13-aff8904e467e@googlegroups.com:

--- getting to a quick conclusion and acting confused if asked
'why do you say that' is an intuition scenario. Doesn't that
sound like shortcut thinking? And, 'female intuition'?

I have a practice regimen where I come to the table, spot my shot and
cue ball roll outcome and take the shot in five seconds or less with no
practice strokes. I stomp round the table, never "eyeing up a shot"
and finish entire racks in less than 2 minutes, banking several balls
in the process.

Just like the Harlem Globe Trotters can toss a shot into the hoop
with great ease. I feel that practicing in this way increases shot
confidence, improves on the ganut of shots I opt to take, and learning
cool new stuff when something less than fully expected happens.

I call it "The Harlem Globe Trotter Effect". There is no way that we
should be able to hit a spot on a ball with another ball to within 2
degrees of the proper spot for the shot so consistently with the target
10 feet away from you. The fact that we can do such things is pretty
wild in my view.

So, experience rules, because that is how a person like me can shoot
bank shots like candy and drop jaws around the room. I have done it
for so long that I simply KNOW how to shoot most shots. That and super
wide pocket openings means that I also KNOW what my odds are for
playing loosely with a shot. I think I am pretty good.

But when one watches a video of a master like O'Sullivan shoot off on
a 12 foot snooker table and run the rack with 2" balls, one knows that
one is not so good. That guy is GOOD at it. So is Efren Reyes.