Re: Herd instincts?

On Nov 29, 1:26 am, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <d63e6cce-4264-479a-9eff-
498d9d67e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx
says...





On Nov 26, 11:45 pm, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <9b8ad450-cf7a-4382-9833-
aed445dea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx
says...

On Nov 24, 5:37 am, krw <k...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <a8117613-94bc-47ff-a973-c3c893eac2e4
@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx says...

On Nov 23, 3:20 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

<snip>

So hang out your shingle and go consulting, if your skills are near
what you say they are you should not have any trouble getting all the
business you want.

Try it sometime. I might have done better if I'd spent serious money
on advertising my services, but I really couldn't see where I could
get the message to the sort of people who might have used me as a
consultant, and I could see that I could waste a lot of money if I
failed to hit the right audience.

IOW, even you don't believe you're worth hiring.

Nonsense. I've designed a couple of big and complicated systems and
made them work. I've seen enough people make a hash of this sort of
job to know that I'm well worth hiring.

The existence theorem makes you a liar.

Clearly, you don't understand the existence theorem.

Clearly, you have to try harder at your lies.

If I were deviating from the truth at any point, this might be a
relevant comment.

Unfortunately for you, you can't effectively claim that I'm deviating
from the truth without demonstrating where I'm deviating from the
truth.

You can claim that you don't believe me, but that just shows that your
ideas about the world happen to be wrong, which has been my contention
about you all along.

Where I probably do go wrong is in putting emphasis on my detailed
engineering skills - I'm certainly better than most electronic
engineers in getting complicated and demanding systems together, but
this isn't a rare skill.

It's a rare enough skill that anyone with the skill and a proven
record that wants a job, has one.

The existence theorem makes you a liar.

Nope. You're 1) not looking for a job, happy to be a leach off
government and your wife or 2) not the super-engineer you claim to
be. Hmm, could both be correct?

You can check whether I've been looking for a job recently by sending
an e-mail to charlotte.rooseboom@xxxxxxxx at ASML in the Netherlands.
She should recognise bill.sloman from my e-mail address, but may have
filed me under A.W.Sloman

Post her response before you next claim that I'm not looking for a
job.

I'd prefer to be eanrning my living rather than drawing unemployment,
but the Dutch government set up the rules that cost me my last job as
well as the rules that paid my unemployment benefit until I turned 65
last week, so that I can't see that there was any logical reason for
me to reject the benefit.

I don't claim to be a super-engineer, merely better than most, and
that isn't enough to get you past the endemic ageism in the
Netherlands.

The answer to your query is that neither of you propositions is
correct, but then again, few of your propositions are correct, so
perhaps I might save everybody's time by labelling only those which
aren't obviously false

The job interviews that I've had that have gone really well have been
those where I got to talk about the interdisciplinary stuff that I've
done.

They wanted to get rid of you.

Actually, they hired me. It was some time ago.

...and then let you go after discovering their mistake...

In fact they kept me on - part-time - even though I refused to move up
to Manchester after they finally closed down their Cambridge
operation. I got full-time work with another employer in Cambridge a
few months later.

There was a patent at EMI that grew out of the perception that while
you need to give the visual system a new image about twenty time a
second to avoid problems with flicker, the cognitive system that
processes the image is happy to treat an image as real-time even if it
is only being refreshed about three times a second.

Well the flicker fusion frequency is a lot closer to 60Hz (give or
take 10Hz, depending on the user and conditions), so the fact that
you're wrong about the basics isn't a good start.

The flicker fusion frequency does depend on light level. Early cinema
got by with 16Hz,

Which was well below the FFF. Remember, they flickered (Duh!).

The don't - if the screen is dim enough.

current cinema uses 24Hz.

They do where they still use film running through a projector.

Wrong again. "Current" cinema, anything in the last 50 years, uses
either 48Hz or 72Hz. Current cinema is digital; not sure of the
technical details.

You are thinking of telecine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine

http://movietheatrereviews.blogspot.com/2007/01/cons-of-digital-projection.html

European television runs at 50Hz, and today's office displays run at
70Hz.

Only if your boss is cheap or your IT department doesn't know what
they're doing. I've not had anything less than 85Hz (or LCD) for at
least a decade.

So you've worked in organisations that don't know much about video. I
learned my stuff at EMI Central Research, where they invented the
first modern television (not that they could prove it to a US court).

http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/john_logie_baird.htm

used for the first public transmissions (from February 1937 to the end
of August 1939).

The real problem with flicker is that it can provoke epilleptic
fits in vulnerable people - over a range of 4 to 59Hz. 20Hz is the worst.

Nonsense.

You expose your ignorance once again

http://www.echeshire-tr.nwest.nhs.uk/pdf%5Cep-tv.pdf

Failing to give the full range of frequencies when it is irrelevant to
the point I'm trying to make scarcely makes me wrong about basics,
Your 60Hz give or take 10Hz is equally rough, so I can point out that
you are the one who is wrong about basics.

You cant get any of it right, not even the basics of cinema. You
then try to bury the reader in bull***.

Unfortunately for the shattered remnants of your credibility, I am not
bullshitting - every point I've made has been correct and is
verifiable, as you'd know it if you weren't bullshitting yourself.

Typical over-educated idiot.

You would like to think so - sadly, you lack the education to realise
when you are bullshitting

You are welcome to claim that you don't believe me, but when you do
you just show the world that your ideas about the world happen to be
wrong, which has been my contention about you all along.

There was a patent at Cambridge Instruments that deal with the problem
that arose when you had to divert a beam of electrons in the time it
took for the electrons to travel the length of the diverting
electrodes.

You keep saying "there was". Are they *yours*? You're a "there
was" too, apparently.

http://www.google.nl/patents?hl=nl&lr=&vid=USPAT4614872&id=waQ8AAAAEB...

Where are the rest?

Find them yourself. Google scholar and "A W Sloman" are all I need.

While I was there

You were "there"? What did *YOU* do, is a better question.

I also fixed a problem in the electron microscope
gain control system that arose when the average number of electrons
per pixel dropped below one - once you've not got any electrons
hitting a significant number of pixels, the standard automatic gain
control algorithm jammed the gain at maximum trying to squeeze the
desired average brightness out the limited number of pixels that had
seen an electron.

If I needed an electron microscope control system fixed, maybe I'd
call you, or not. You're bragging (whining) to the wrong person,
Sloman.

You'd think that the problem was obvious, and I'd predicted it long
before we had to do anything about it, but I wasn't allowed to do
anything about it until it finally upset a customer - and I was the
one who first recognised what the customer was complaining about.

More whining.

Bragging.

Distinction without a difference.

Your judgement isn't looking all that reliable, is it?

The funniest example of this kind of trick was the patent I never got,
It started when some Finn published a semi-empirical treatment of the
surface tension forces acting on a gallium arsenide single crystal
being pulled out of a gallium arsenide melt

http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~cwinkler/poverview.htm

When I'd read the paper it struck me that it provided a fairly direct
way of monitoring the meniscus angle at the crystal/liquid boundary
(which is what you needed to control when pulling a crystal) so I
wrote it up as a potential patent and sent it on as memo to my boss,
and forgot about it,

I happened to send the memo on my birthday (some nineteen years ago
today) so I remembered the date.

Has been. What have you done today?

What I do most days. Few people get themselves into a postion where
they can produce a stream of patentable discoveries. Alan Dower
Blumlein of EMI produced 128 over 18 years

Why are you deflecting? Afraid to say you watched soap operas all
day?

I don't. My wife does watch television of an evening, and I'll watch
things like "House" with her, but given a free choice I'd bin the TV
set.

or about seven a year, which puts him ahead of my father who never did
better than one a year in his best years, but behind Edison who
produced 1093 and must have come close to twenty a year. I did apply
for an Australian provisional patent a couple of years ago, but let it
lapse - the Sawyer motor I wanted to use wasn't fast enough for the
application.

More deflection.

Some four months later, the boss called me in to his office to look at
at patent he was being offered - essentially the same idea. We knew
the guy offering us the patent - we were already paying him royalties
on the scheme we used to control the Czochralski gallium arsenide
puller that we sold - and he was in the office at the time, so I was
happy to play along and point out that I could scarcely claim that the
idea wasn't patentable since I'd suggested patenting it some four
months earlier,

Why didn't you claim prior art? You had the evidence, right?

He'd submitted his patent application before I'd sent my memo to the
boss - and in any event "prior art" is irrelevant in U.K. patent
applications. We might have argued that his patent was invalid, since
it was obvious to those skilled in the craft - as exemplified by me -

Hardly "irrelevant", eh?

but since we would probably have got an exclusive license on the
patent if it had been any good, this would have been shooting
ourselves in the foot.

So, you came up with something obvious *after* someone else.

But quite independently. And I didn't think that it was all that
obvious at the time, or I wouldn't have suggested to my boss that it
was patentable. What one may argue in court of law, and what one
actually thinks don't have to be all that closely related.

It turned out that our guy had had a bit of head start - he was one of
the editors of the journal where the Finn had published, and had in
fact been the action editor for that paper.

That kind of insight does seem to be pretty rare, but I'm damned if I
can see where I could try and sell it.

Dunno how rare it is. I know several people that would latch onto
something similar. A few have in the neighborhood of 100 issued
patents.

So do I. They all worked for companes that kept a stable of patent
lawyers.

We were talking about your lazy ass.

Any ideas?

First, get off your lazy ass. Someone as "good" as you should have
*no* problem finding a good job. If they're calling me, only
passively looking for work, someone as good as you claim you are,
would have them banging on the door.

That's not an idea, it's a preconception,

Hardly "pre". You've made the fact that you're a lazy bum obvious.

But then again you think that you do know something about video -
which is obviously wrong - and that I don't, which is going to look
equally obviously wrong to anybody whose knowledge of video is less
superficial than yours.

based on self-satisfied ignorance.

I'm satisfied with myself, sure.

A little over-satisfied, on the evidence presented above.

I'm not the one watching "I Love
Lucy" all day. "Ignorance", hardly. Got you pegged.

Perhaps not. I saw "I love Lucy" on Australian television some fifty
years ago, when it was more or less new

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy

in the sense that people would turn the TV onto that program when I
was in the room, and I'd either change the channel or get up and go
someplace else. It wasn't my kind of TV then, and it certainly isn't
now.

It also makes it clear that you don't actually know anybody
with around 100 issued patents

You're being stupid now (still).

Not a claim that it is worth your while to make ... you'd be the
original self-basting turkey.

<snipped implausible claims ostensibly originating from people he
claims to know. If they exist at all, they are presumably bullshitting
him, either about the number of patents they've got - he clearly lacks
the skills to test their claims - or the number of job offers, which
is actually harder to test - or quite probably both>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Quantcast