Kevin Aylward
kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote> Rod Speed wrote
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>> Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> Which project?
>>>> All of them, since they are likely all as poorly presented as the one I specifically had in mind
>>> How do you know with seeing them?
>>> Are you suggesting that great inventors sometimes don't occasionally have bad ideas?
>> Nope. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like a great inventor, child.
>> Just a pathetic wanker, actually.
>>> To the contrary, the bad ideas of most successful inventors greatly out number the good ideas.
>> Thats just plain wrong too.
>>> Edison went through 10,000 bad ideas before getting a light bulb.
>> You've plucked that number out of your arse too. We can tell that by the smell.
>>> Successful inventors just try so many things they can select and choose the good ones.
>> Some do, plenty dont.
>>> You have really demonstrated you are ignorant of the design process.
>> You in spades above, child.
>>> And we haven't even gotten to the part where you dodge
>>> the question about all _your_ inventions and patent numbers.
>> You in spades, child.
>> Not one. Zero, nada, ziltch.
>>> Yup, that's where this is heading. Another house training.
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>> Apparently puppy training is in big demand around here.
>> Whats needed around here is arse kicking, and you are getting yours in spades, child.
>>> "There are no bad ideas."
>>> -- the Governator
>> Wota terminal fuckwit.
> I am stunned with this answer.
Your problem.
> Its trivially obvious that by most random variations (i.e. new ideas)
New ideas are nothing like random variations.
> are detrimental variations, noting the inherent Darwinian random variation, selection and replication algorithm that
> the brain actually uses.
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.
Just more completely silly stuff along the same lines.
> I would suggest that, for example, you do some research on, for
> example, Einstein, and the number of false starts and numerous errors
> he made from 1907 to 1915 in obtaining the General Theory Of Relativity.
Irrelevant to how many inventions happened nothing like that. Most obviously with the Wright Bros and Parkes.
> Most ideas by experts and novices alike, are worthless.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Its that simple really.
Just because you proclaim that doesnt make it so.
