|
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".
|
|
|
|
|
I must be in the wrong business, I don't know how a company can operate in the red without any products and continue for more than the amount of time it takes the banks to file enough paperwork to shut it down.
I worked for a company that was operating in the red, there were months (in a row) we didn't get paid. One day the VP came in and told me not to leave any personal property at work that night, the next day the company assets were going to be seized. Luckily another company came in and bought the company for the outstanding debt the next day and a few months later we all got paid.
The company you are speaking of was either just starting out, reorganizing, or it had something that allowed it to continue operating or put enough in the coffers to coast for a while. Payroll can't be taken out of an empty bank account.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Beyer wrote: for more than the amount of time it takes the banks to file enough paperwork to shut it down.
Venture capital.
Ron Beyer wrote: <layer>The company you are speaking of was either just starting out, reorganizing, or it had something that allowed it to continue
The companies, plural, that I was discussing had people who were taking a risk by providing capital that allowed the companies to continue. In one case at least 7 years.
In several cases it was specific venture capitalists. But in other cases it was other companies who main business had nothing to do with investing in other companies but who wished to provide capital to other companies because, presumably, they were willing to risk based on future return.
It is "risk" that was being discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
J Julian wrote: We have no one that would be willing to try to land on the moon today.
Do you have a place for me? I'm definitely want to do that!
But really - I know some companies and even more persons that are Edison kind...
The problem is that we do have a global net to exchange info, but not enough global companies...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Why not be that risk-taking company yourself?
(I did it, crashed and burned, but learned...and I think I am better for so doing)
|
|
|
|
|
I know my limitations. I'm not the strategic type of person. I'm a tactician. I'm not much on being able to come up with the ideas, but I can make things happen.
|
|
|
|
|
When a company reaches a certain size, it is taken over by accountants: and they know only the cost of everything, and know not the value of anything. Big companies can - and do, sometimes - take risks (even huge risks) but it needs a person of foresight and ambition at the helm to see the potential rather than the outlay.
Sadly, there aren't many of those in the top echelons because the accountants weed them out...
One of the reasons I prefer small companies - risks are the reason they exist at all!
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 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
+1 on the bean-counters bit, wouldn't blame it solely on accountants, but they do deserve special mention.
I've seen companies transition from the small/flexible to the bigger/hidebound and it's never pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
How about Google?[^]
It's had multiple project failures, but can easily absorb them and occasionally comes up trumps with something fantastic.
Problem is for you've got to be able to continue despite the failures. I reckon small companies have the flexibility to do this for a small number of projects, and big companies can abosrb the costs, I think the problem lies in the middle?
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that that you are using the benefit of hindsight and are doing selective analysis. Most companies "shooting for the moon" and being "willing to fail numerous times" look like a bunch of crackpots to contemporaries. Working for these companies is typically rather brutal since they expect you to carry the risk without much of an upside--are you willing to go without pay for months? Are you willing to work 80 hour weeks with no weekends or vacations? Are you willing to work with outdated hardware and software?
Do you want to take the risks or do you want someone else to take the risks while you collect a salary and nice benefits?
(BTW, I've done all of that. It was great fun, but I had to sell my house, almost declared bankruptcy and am still paying the price vis-a-vis retirement.)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
