Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 17:52:16 +0100
From: Steve Taylor
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Subject: Re: Alan Blumlein site
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <6RWg9.101$Fc5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Organization: Zen Internet
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> 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
> again, meaningless.
I suggest you look at the body of Blumlein's work, and then comment,
after reviewing say British patent 323,037. To me that is a work of
genius, not something waiting to be discovered. You do a grave
dis-service to the whole idea of creativity.
> Merely doing something simple that others have missed, don't really
> cut it.
That is like the person who sees a magic trick explained and then
declares that its so simple and obvious anyone can see how it was done.
But only afterwards.
Your touting of Einstein as a genius for example ignores the serious
contribution of Maxwell, Lorenz and even Faraday to his work, as well
as his first wife, a skilled mathematician in her own right, whom
history has seen fit to ignore until recently. I doubt very much that
"genius" as such exists in isolation.
Besides, relativity is obvious - anyone can imagine the consequences of
sitting on a beam of light and making observations. I can see exactly
what Einstein saw. Now.