|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: mad as a box of frogs
Heh? Just because he invented a cheap and safe(r) way to transport electricity than Edison's extremely expensive & dangerous method? I.e. AC current instead of Editon's DC requiring the "commutator" (basically what we now refer to as an inverter)? Or because he used fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent (much more efficient & longer lasting)? Or perhaps because he thought up ways to produce all the different wavelengths of light - making things like medical x-rays possible? Or because he invented radio, wireless message transmission, etc. even before Marconi thought of sending a message without using wires? Or because he used radio to control a boat's electric motor and actuators for the steering (note the only thing he didn't invent in that sentence was the boat - even starting a whole new concept: robotics)? Or because he even had the audacity to invent a means to produce coherent light - Lasers? Or was it perhaps that he envisioned cheap limitless energy from the very bonds of matter - fission / fusion anyone?
So not that "mad" after-all ... just so far ahead of the rest of his peers that they assumed he styled himself some sort of wizard in comparison to them.
But this is truly the shape of things: Edison was BLAND in comparison to Tesla. Tesla was reaching for the moon, Edison hardly ventured out his door.
|
|
|
|
|
no mad as in his best friend was a talking piegeon who shot light beams from its eyes!
he was everything you said plus more a whole lot more, but he was also a few cents short of a dollar
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: Mind you I'm more a Tesla fan!
I am too! Think of what he could have done if he had lived a while longer?
Mind you he would have had to have a lab in the local nut house. 
|
|
|
|
|
with rubber tools! Geek hero!! 
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: with rubber tools!
and Play Doh!
|
|
|
|
|
Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine.
Indeed.
"Whereas smaller computer languages have features designed into them, C++ is unusual in having a whole swathe of functionality discovered, like a tract of 19th century Africa."
-- Verity Stob
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/cplusplus_cli/
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the history is written by the victor
|
|
|
|
|
edison was con artist, most of what he is credited with he stole or bought the rights to, there are laws nowadays to stop companies like edison succeding
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
It's always amusing to see people want to "change" history. I had a professor who seems to enjoy teaching that everything we learned as children was all wrong because now HE knew the real truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
when the history is wrong it should be changed, just because someone could afford to push his version does not make that true, just like the victor in war does not make thier version true
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and I agree. But who is to say your (generally speaking) version of the history is right and the other version is wrong? That's the irony that makes me giggle. None of us were there so we can't know everything for sure.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
If two people in the same car witness an accident on the road in front of them, there will be major differences in what they describe to the police.
So what chance do we have with official histories, written by people who weren't even there to see events unfold? 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
yes but if you take the two stories, add more evidence gathered post the incident and apply reasoning to the situation you will end up with a better indication of what happened
and relying on what one of the main parties said in exclusion of any other point of view is a recipe for diaster
(eg if you do that you end up with something like the Japanese version of WW2)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Precisely. Yet, for hundreds and thousands of years later we'll keep arguing about who's right. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
so we shouldt try? yes we can only go with what is known now but as that is probably more and more importantly more accurate than it was when the history became "history" then it should never be that history is indisputable.
and edison has been shown to be a dubious character if not downright dishonest, he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: so we shouldt try?
Of course we should try. I'm not accusing anyone in particular but the people who have ego issues and feel they have to prove to the world that the history is wrong make me nauseous.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: he certainly wasnt above using violence to make his point (read inforcing patents on items that didnt infringe them) he makes the Apple/Samsung tiff look like a couple of friends having a quiet chat
Except your point is in fact ignoring the rest of history for that period. Edison worked in the culture that existed then. You don't get to rewrite history by imposing current morals, laws and regulations that exist now on someone in the past and claim that they were somehow "bad".
Under that criteria Edison doesn't even rank because there were vastly more vicious acts of all sort happening all over the place in various cultures during that time.
|
|
|
|
|
whilst I agree that you should put modern morals on historic events you should also not accept propergander as being truth, sending thugs round to beat you up and destroy your business just because you use film equipment not approved by you, was wrong then and still is.
He used bully boy tactics in court and when that didnt work he used them in the real world, these were imoral then and imoral now.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: propergander
As opposed to propergoose? After all, what's proper for the gander is proper for the goose. (I think you were thinking of propaganda.  )
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: was wrong then and still is.
Do you know how and who used to break up unions and union protests?
|
|
|
|
|
I think Marconi took a page out of Edison's book too...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Big companies don't take risks, so if you want to be a part of that then here's what you do:
Find a start-up or young business to join. They don't have a choice but to take some risks.
The benefit of joining a start up is that they are always working on something new, they are taking risks, and it means you can aggressively advance.
The down side is that start ups fail, and most don't have a lot of working capital for a while, so you will have to trade job growth/opportunity for pay and benefits. This is why a lot of people don't bother with start ups, its not just the businesses looking at the bottom line, employees worry about their bottom line too.
Take it from somebody running a start up, risks are out there, but if you want a business that takes risks, you will have to take a risk with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Beyer wrote: Big companies don't take risks,
Of course they do. Matter of fact there are very large investment firms that do only that - venture capitalists.
Larger companies just take risks that will not cripple their bottom line. Very small companies don't do that. Sometimes because they don't have a bottom line. And if they do then they often fail (statistically.)
|
|
|
|
|
I mean companies that we are in the business of, not a lot of investment bankers hang out on CP
And to me, a risk is something that can cost you everything, otherwise they are closer to "experiments".
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Beyer wrote: I mean companies that we are in the business of, not a lot of investment bankers hang out on CP
I can't speak for all CPers but I do get paid most of the companies I have worked for for quite some time, didn't have products when I joined them and were not making a profit.
So the latter and the former together means that someone has been taking a "risk".
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
