Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <6RWg9.101$Fc5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Alan Blumlein site
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1032095733 27627 184.108.40.206 (15 Sep 2002 13:15:33 GMT)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:15:33 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:15:34 BST
"Steve Taylor" wrote in message
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >>Many, many "standard" circuit configurations.
> >>And he was dead by the age of 39
> >>A genius.
> > But this dont a genius make.
> A dwarf on giants shoulders sees furthest of the two.
Yeah, he gets success on the backs of others.
> AD Blumlein was a pioneer in electronic design and theory. Over 100
> patents in electronic technology.
Being first does not automatically qualify for real worth. This is a
fallacy most adhere to. Many things are just ripe for discovery. They
were not discovered before simple because the background structure was
not there. e.g a differential pair requires the invention of an active
device, but once that is invented, the rest is a pretty trivial follow
up. Other things, despite the underlying background, need an extra
insight that only a *few* will see. For example, the basic equations of
Special Relativity were known way before Einstein. However, it was
Einstein that understood their true meaning.
>I am intrigued to know what you
> think makes someone a genius, from your other postings, I get the
> impression that it only applies to thereoticians ?
I have made a posting on some of this already in this thread, but no, I
don't consider that it only applies to theoreticians.
For me, a genius has to do something that is *truly* *difficult* that
*most* will *miss* *given* the opportunity, although this something
might be comprehended in more simple terms. "Genius", imo, is something
that differentiates above all others. Merely doing something simple that
others have missed, don't really cut it. I don't take the view that
here are millions of geniuses out there. This would make the notion
meaningless. If inherent difficulty is not a factor, the notion is
The idea that simple producing something that has not been done before
has significant merit does injustice to those achievements that are
truly special. One has to put newness in context. Given that there is an
existing body of knowledge at some instant, and that for example, a
given person is actually in the position where such and such a problem
is to be solved. How many others, in similar circumstances could be
expected to come up with a similar solution. For instance, I truly
discovered/invented a *KEY* aspect of C++ prior to having any knowledge
of C++, i.e. function pointers in data structures that result in the
same syntax as that use in C++. The reality is that most new ideas are
*simple* extensions of existing ideas that *many* others will discover.
I don't consider generating these extensions to be a mark of genius. Its
plain and simple engineering.
Put 100 suitable *qualified* people in the same conditions as Einstein
was. How many of them would have come up with GR? Put 100 suitable
*qualified* people in the same conditions as Blumlein. How many of them
would have come up with a diff pair. I think this distinction matters.
No doubt other opinions exist.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.