Agree. I am doing my level best to write and publish the best papers I can. This process can take 25 years. Taking into account that someone must continue developing the theory, and I am the only one doing it, what else should I do?
Sergio From: Derek Zahn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:28 AM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] Analog Computation Steve Richfield wrote: > Any ideas for a good solution? Of course. Lots and lots of people get their ideas implemented, and many of them are not rich or overly privileged. Emulate them. You either get a good solid start on building something useful yourself, or you make a convincing case to people who have resources they are willing to invest in new ideas. If such people are not convinced by your case, find out why and address those points in the way they need you to address them. Unconvincingness is not a problem with the uncaring world, it's a symptom of a defective case. If your points are not penetrating, it does no good to blame the audience; sharpen the points! _____ Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:57:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [agi] Analog Computation From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sergio, This entire debate reminds me of the late pre-micro era. I had my own plan to build the first microcomputer. It was to be a bipolar chip that implemented a bit-serial architecture. It would have been about the same speed as the early MOS micros, but would have modern-day word lengths and hardware multiply/divide. In short, it was a better way that was never built. Since then, I have met two other people who had their own plans to build the first microcomputer, each of which was quite different from the others, and all of which were MUCH better than any of the early micros. So, why did they waste good silicon building garbage like the 4004 and 8008? Because we were on the OUTSIDE. Our proposals were being rejected by the same sorts of folks who were working on the 4004, and so they had to be killed lest they compete. We failed because we couldn't get past the front door. However, the 4004 succeeded because they had easily avoided the greatest barrier of all - the front door. Here we fail because we are outsiders to all of the corporations who desperately need what we know how to do. Of course we can always throw proposals over their transoms, only to find their way to the very people who would be threatened by them. In short, this is a people problem, and not a technological problem. Any ideas for a good solution? Steve AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/4027887-e37ac021> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; ad2> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
