Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an interesting paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/119/6/e2120037119.full.pdf

I'm fairly sure that I don't understand all that much of it, but what I can understand strikes me as impressive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 09/02/2022 01:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an interesting paper
>
> https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/119/6/e2120037119.full.pdf
>
> I'm fairly sure that I don't understand all that much of it, but what I can understand strikes me as impressive.

I'm absolutely sure that I don't understand any of it. But in the
introduction, it mentions NASA's definition of life. This was new to me,
but on searching for further information I came across an interesting
page at
<https://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/OoL/whatislife/Vikingmission.html>.
The creation date of that page doesn't appear, but it's obviously after
NASA first stated their definition. What amused me was the final
paragraph (which predates the NASA definition), and perhaps shows the
sort of pitfalls this area provides even for "experts":

"What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme
alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching
promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally
conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The
ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said
one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the
essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice
was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are
alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven
Pillars of Life
(NB the link at the end of that ends up at a 404. More info in the wiki
at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Pillars_of_Life>)

--

Jeff

On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that
> defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these
> balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the
> essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone
> nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce,
> until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male
> and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The
> Seven Pillars of Life

<https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>

On 09/02/22 19:40, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
>> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
>> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that
>> defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these
>> balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the
>> essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone
>> nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce,
>> until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male
>> and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The
>> Seven Pillars of Life
>
> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>

And, of course, aphids do reproduce asexually to the extent
that some aphids are born pregnant.

Then there's Diploscapter Pachys, which hasn’t had sex in roughly
18 million years, when it parted from its parent species by
exclusively practicing asexual reproduction.

On 2/9/2022 3:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 09/02/2022 01:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> Today's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences has an
>> interesting paper
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/119/6/e2120037119.full.pdf
>>
>> I'm fairly sure that I don't understand all that much of it, but what
>> I can understand strikes me as impressive.
>
> I'm absolutely sure that I don't understand any of it. But in the
> introduction, it mentions NASA's definition of life. This was new to me,
> but on searching for further information I came across an interesting
> page at
> <https://www.sfu.ca/colloquium/PDC_Top/OoL/whatislife/Vikingmission.html>.
> The creation date of that page doesn't appear, but it's obviously after
> NASA first stated their definition. What amused me was the final
> paragraph (which predates the NASA definition), and perhaps shows the
> sort of pitfalls this area provides even for "experts":
>
> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
> scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme
> alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching
> promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally
> conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The
> ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said
> one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the
> essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice
> was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are
> alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven
> Pillars of Life
> (NB the link at the end of that ends up at a 404. More info in the wiki
> at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Pillars_of_Life>)
>

And defining what the terms "race" and "gender" mean in an absolute way
face similar ontological problems to coming up with an unambiguous
definition of the term "life."

On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
>> scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme
>> alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of
>> launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed
>> by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed
>> at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the essential
>> characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone
>> nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to
>> reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead.
>> Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.”
>> - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>
> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>

Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter of
great importance to humans. But Nature doesn't care at all what things "is."

On 2/9/2022 2:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
>>> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
>>> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons
>>> that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of
>>> these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is
>>> the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science.
>>> Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to
>>> reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two
>>> rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel
>>> E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>
>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>
> Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter of great
> importance to humans.

It's of "great importance" to folks who have very rigid notions of
"how things should be". But, to many (and increasingly more), it's
just a <shrug>

> But Nature doesn't care at all what things "is."

On 2/9/2022 1:02 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/22 19:40, Don Y wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
>>> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
>>> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons
>>> that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of
>>> these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is
>>> the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science.
>>> Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to
>>> reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two
>>> rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” - Daniel
>>> E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>
>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>
> And, of course, aphids do reproduce asexually to the extent
> that some aphids are born pregnant.
>
> Then there's Diploscapter Pachys, which hasn’t had sex in roughly
> 18 million years, when it parted from its parent species by
> exclusively practicing asexual reproduction.

I think many (all?) plants can reproduce (propagate) asexually.
Even though that may not be the "intended" method of reproduction.

ISTR there is an extreme lack of diversity among banana trees (?)

On 2/9/2022 5:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 2:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
>>>> scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme
>>>> alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of
>>>> launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence,
>>>> followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a
>>>> solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the
>>>> essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science.
>>>> Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the
>>>> ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one
>>>> rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either
>>>> one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>>
>>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>>
>> Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter
>> of great importance to humans.
>
> It's of "great importance" to folks who have very rigid notions of
> "how things should be".  But, to many (and increasingly more), it's
> just a <shrug>

It's often easier to say what something isn't than what something "is",
a cloud is clearly not a person, and a person is clearly not a 1964 Impala.

Try to define what a person "is" though is more difficult

On 2/9/2022 4:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 5:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 2:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
>>>>> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
>>>>> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons
>>>>> that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures
>>>>> of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to
>>>>> reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one
>>>>> statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a
>>>>> life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then
>>>>> one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one
>>>>> alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>>>
>>>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>>>
>>> Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter of
>>> great importance to humans.
>>
>> It's of "great importance" to folks who have very rigid notions of
>> "how things should be". But, to many (and increasingly more), it's
>> just a <shrug>
>
> It's often easier to say what something isn't than what something "is", a cloud
> is clearly not a person, and a person is clearly not a 1964 Impala.
>
> Try to define what a person "is" though is more difficult

Their accomplishments + their relationships.

On 09/02/22 23:05, bitrex wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 5:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 2:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific
>>>>> elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus
>>>>> alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons
>>>>> that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures
>>>>> of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to
>>>>> reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman
>>>>> of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was
>>>>> the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit
>>>>> is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is
>>>>> dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>>>
>>>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>>>
>>> Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter of great
>>> importance to humans.
>>
>> It's of "great importance" to folks who have very rigid notions of
>> "how things should be".  But, to many (and increasingly more), it's
>> just a <shrug>
>
> It's often easier to say what something isn't than what something "is", a cloud
> is clearly not a person, and a person is clearly not a 1964 Impala.
>
> Try to define what a person "is" though is more difficult

Human beings have two legs. Is a thalodomide victim or amputee a human being?

If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?

On 2/10/2022 12:51 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/22 23:05, bitrex wrote:
>> On 2/9/2022 5:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2022 2:05 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2022 2:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
>>>>>> scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive?
>>>>>> Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching
>>>>>> promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally
>>>>>> conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The
>>>>>> ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said
>>>>>> one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential
>>>>>> of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard.
>>>>>> “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but
>>>>>> either one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>>>>
>>>> Humans very much want to know what things "is", and this is a matter of
>>>> great importance to humans.
>>>
>>> It's of "great importance" to folks who have very rigid notions of
>>> "how things should be". But, to many (and increasingly more), it's
>>> just a <shrug>
>>
>> It's often easier to say what something isn't than what something "is", a
>> cloud is clearly not a person, and a person is clearly not a 1964 Impala.
>>
>> Try to define what a person "is" though is more difficult
>
> Human beings have two legs. Is a thalodomide victim or amputee a human being?
>
> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?

No, it's still a cup of coffee! ;-)

On 09/02/2022 23:23, Don Y wrote:
> On 2/9/2022 1:02 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 09/02/22 19:40, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2022 1:46 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> "What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the
>>>> scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme
>>>> alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of
>>>> launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence,
>>>> followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a
>>>> solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the
>>>> essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science.
>>>> Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the
>>>> ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one
>>>> rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either
>>>> one alone is dead.” - Daniel E Koshland, The Seven Pillars of Life
>>>
>>> <https://roaring.earth/all-female-lizard-species/>
>>
>> And, of course, aphids do reproduce asexually to the extent
>> that some aphids are born pregnant.
>>
>> Then there's Diploscapter Pachys, which hasn’t had sex in roughly
>> 18 million years, when it parted from its parent species by
>> exclusively practicing asexual reproduction.
>
> I think many (all?) plants can reproduce (propagate) asexually.
> Even though that may not be the "intended" method of reproduction.

Some plants are exclusively asexual, and some will use both sexual and
asexual reproduction. But for many, I think it is more accurate to say
that they are good at re-growing missing parts after injury - growing
new plants from cuttings is not really "reproduction".

>
> ISTR there is an extreme lack of diversity among banana trees (?)
>

What we call "bananas" (and they are plants, not trees) are artificial
and human-made - like many of our major crops, they are the result of
massive-scale long-running selective breeding. Wild bananas have far
more genetic diversity. Low genetic diversity within crop plants is a
major problem, since it means a single virus, fungus, or other pathogen
can wipe out entire crops.

If you want a banana-evolution related laugh, have a look here:

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_argument>

In article <su1eta$e93$2@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
>
> ISTR there is an extreme lack of diversity among banana trees (?)

Yes, the commercial "Cavendish" strain, bred to satisfy supermarket
customers and could not exist "in the wild". A bit like pedigree dogs
bred to satisfy some random cosmetic criteria that are then subject to
all sorts of inbred genetic conditions.

In article <su2g5c$ajf$1@dont-email.me>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
says...
>
> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?

I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
> >
> > If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.

The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.

He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
>> says...
>>>
>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>
> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.
>
> The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>
> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>

The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
computers you have today.

He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.

But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
few clever things". The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
heard it before.

He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.

On 10/02/22 11:55, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
>>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
>>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>>
>> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.
>>
>> The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>>
>> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>>
>
> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
> computers you have today.
>
> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.
>
> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
> few clever things". The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
> heard it before.
>
> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
> remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.

I was in Cambridge in the 80s, and can corroborate what Bill said.

People there had a /much/ better opinion of Acorn Computers
(which later morphed into ARM).

In article <992a5b3c-0975-433c-ba5f-3819beb11dfcn@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...
>
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> > In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
> > says...
> > >
> > > If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
> > I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>
> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.
>
> The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>
> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.

But did you get the specific relevance and joke?

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:55:13 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> >> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
> >> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
> >
> > And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.
> >
> > The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
> >
> > He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.
> >
> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
> computers you have today.

Rubbish. He produced cheaper home computer and handheld calculators than anybody else, but they were always at least little bit too cheap.

I don't see any of his "innovations" as opening up possibilities that weren't obvious to pretty everybody at the time
> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.
>
> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
> few clever things".

In Thatcher's Britain there were loads of knighthoods given to equally insignificant twerps.

> The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
> heard it before.

He took the idea rather better realised in the Apple computer and made it even cheaper. I was a foundation subscriber to Byte - my wife was doing a post-doc at MIT at the time and thought that it was something that I would like, as indeed it was. Clive Sinclair was just one more of the people who latched onto those ideas

> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.

He wasn't any kind of genius. If there was a genius in that area in the UK in the late 1970's it was Andy Hopper. After Chris Curry fell out with Clive Sinclair , he set up Acorn Computers, which produce a rather better product, but looking at the subsequent history the good stuff seems to have come from Andy Hopper.

When I lived in Cambridge I knew David Johnson-Davies who was their software chief for a while, but got out when he could see one of their cash flow crises was coming up - probably the Christmas 1983 disaster. I was offered a job there when I moved to Cambridge, but Cambridge Instruments was prepared to pay my moving expenses and Acorn wasn't. I suspect that I was lucky.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 10/02/2022 12:58, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 10/02/22 11:55, David Brown wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
>>>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
>>>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>>>
>>> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for
>>> people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other
>>> achievements to boast about.
>>>
>>> The archetypical  Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not
>>> only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things.
>>> Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of
>>> victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>>>
>>> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of
>>> people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>>>
>>
>> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
>> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
>> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
>> computers you have today.
>>
>> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
>> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
>> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
>> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.
>>
>> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
>> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
>> few clever things".  The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
>> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
>> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
>> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
>> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
>> heard it before.
>>
>> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
>> remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.
>
> I was in Cambridge in the 80s, and can corroborate what Bill said.
>
> People there had a /much/ better opinion of Acorn Computers
> (which later morphed into ARM).
>

Acorn designed far better computers, both software and hardware - anyone
who has used a BBC Micro and a ZX Spectrum would be in no doubt which
was technically superior. But the BBC cost 3 times as much as the
spectrum - more, when you included buying a monitor instead of using an
old TV. The Spectrum (and its predecessor the ZX 81) were at least an
order of magnitude more popular as home computers - the BBC was
primarily found in schools.

The engineers at Acorn were also geniuses, and also highly important to
the British computer industry - but that does not in any way detract
from Sinclair's achievements.

And Sinclair had a smarter business strategy - anyone could make
software (and even hardware) for the Spectrum, while Acorn tried to keep
control of everything themselves. If the Acorn folks had been more
open, we'd be using the descendents of Acorn-compatible computers
running MOS rather than IBM-compatible computers running DOS.

There are many reasons why Sinclair's computers are in the past, while
ARM microcontrollers (but not Acorn computers) are ubiquitous today.
But one thing you can be /very/ sure about, is that it is not because
Clive Sinclair was a man with a high IQ and no other achievements!

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:58:36 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> In article <992a5b3c-0975-433c...@googlegroups.com>,
> bill....@ieee.org says...
> >
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> > > In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
> > > I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
> >
> > And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other achievements to boast about.
> >
> > The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things. Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
> >
> > He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>
> But did you get the specific relevance and joke?

Mensa is Latin for a table, but not a stool. If there's a joke in there, it's not one to get excited about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:45:46 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 12:58, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > On 10/02/22 11:55, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
> >>>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
> >>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
> >>>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
> >>>
> >>> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for
> >>> people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other
> >>> achievements to boast about.
> >>>
> >>> The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not
> >>> only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things.
> >>> Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of
> >>> victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
> >>>
> >>> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of
> >>> people had Clive Sinclair stories.
> >>
> >> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
> >> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
> >> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
> >> computers you have today.
> >>
> >> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
> >> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
> >> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
> >> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.

But mostly because he insisted on the cheapest solution, even when it was much too nasty to serve the intended purpose.

> >> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
> >> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
> >> few clever things". The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
> >> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
> >> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
> >> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
> >> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
> >> heard it before.
> >>
> >> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
> >> remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.
> >
> > I was in Cambridge in the 80s, and can corroborate what Bill said.
> >
> > People there had a /much/ better opinion of Acorn Computers
> > (which later morphed into ARM).
> >
> Acorn designed far better computers, both software and hardware - anyone
> who has used a BBC Micro and a ZX Spectrum would be in no doubt which
> was technically superior. But the BBC cost 3 times as much as the
> spectrum - more, when you included buying a monitor instead of using an
> old TV. The Spectrum (and its predecessor the ZX 81) were at least an
> order of magnitude more popular as home computers - the BBC was
> primarily found in schools.

But they were popular because they were cheap, rather than an anything like good.

> The engineers at Acorn were also geniuses, and also highly important to
> the British computer industry - but that does not in any way detract
> from Sinclair's achievements.

Chris Curry wasn't exactly a genius, but he got out from under Clive Sinclair because Clive was too much of a cheapskate to sell anything good enough to be much use.

> And Sinclair had a smarter business strategy - anyone could make
> software (and even hardware) for the Spectrum, while Acorn tried to keep
> control of everything themselves. If the Acorn folks had been more
> open, we'd be using the descendants of Acorn-compatible computers
> running MOS rather than IBM-compatible computers running DOS.

Fat chance.

> There are many reasons why Sinclair's computers are in the past, while
> ARM microcontrollers (but not Acorn computers) are ubiquitous today.
> But one thing you can be /very/ sure about, is that it is not because
> Clive Sinclair was a man with a high IQ and no other achievements!

Clive's IQ was high, but his judgement sucked. When Chris Curry was working for Clive, he ran for the National Front in Cambridge, subsidised by Clive. That tells you all you need to know about both of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 10/02/22 13:45, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 12:58, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 10/02/22 11:55, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
>>>>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
>>>>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>>>>
>>>> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for
>>>> people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other
>>>> achievements to boast about.
>>>>
>>>> The archetypical  Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not
>>>> only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things.
>>>> Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of
>>>> victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>>>>
>>>> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of
>>>> people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
>>> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
>>> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
>>> computers you have today.
>>>
>>> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
>>> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
>>> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
>>> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.
>>>
>>> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
>>> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
>>> few clever things".  The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
>>> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
>>> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
>>> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
>>> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
>>> heard it before.
>>>
>>> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
>>> remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.
>>
>> I was in Cambridge in the 80s, and can corroborate what Bill said.
>>
>> People there had a /much/ better opinion of Acorn Computers
>> (which later morphed into ARM).
>>
>
> Acorn designed far better computers, both software and hardware - anyone
> who has used a BBC Micro and a ZX Spectrum would be in no doubt which
> was technically superior. But the BBC cost 3 times as much as the
> spectrum - more, when you included buying a monitor instead of using an
> old TV. The Spectrum (and its predecessor the ZX 81) were at least an
> order of magnitude more popular as home computers - the BBC was
> primarily found in schools.

Agreed.

> The engineers at Acorn were also geniuses, and also highly important to
> the British computer industry - but that does not in any way detract
> from Sinclair's achievements.

Sinclair's achievements were primarily financial not technical,
from his first mail-order transistors business onwards.

Yes, cost is important, but so is quality - ask anyone with one
of his late 60s audio amps.

His stuff was /just/ fit for purpose. The C5 wasn't even that,
unless you lived in a contour-free landscape such as Cambridge.
Personally I think the C5 might have had a niche future, e.g. on
large factory sites or tourist destinations. But he grossly
over-sold its capabilities (shades of Tesla?).

> And Sinclair had a smarter business strategy - anyone could make
> software (and even hardware) for the Spectrum, while Acorn tried to keep
> control of everything themselves. If the Acorn folks had been more
> open, we'd be using the descendents of Acorn-compatible computers
> running MOS rather than IBM-compatible computers running DOS.

I doubt that.

The key point the PC was that IBM backed it, and that moved it
from the realm of enthusiast tinkerers to corporate purchasers.
"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".

IIRC the first Archimedes file system was /very/ strange;
suitable for academic purposes but not much more.

> There are many reasons why Sinclair's computers are in the past, while
> ARM microcontrollers (but not Acorn computers) are ubiquitous today.
> But one thing you can be /very/ sure about, is that it is not because
> Clive Sinclair was a man with a high IQ and no other achievements!

The principle reason is that hardware cost was continually
reducing, to the point where you didn't compensate for
grotty engineering. That removed Sinclair's USP.

On 10/02/2022 15:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:45:46 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 12:58, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 10/02/22 11:55, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 10/02/2022 12:20, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:51:29 PM UTC+11, Mike Coon wrote:
>>>>>> In article <su2g5c$ajf$1...@dont-email.me>, spam...@blueyonder.co.uk
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I rest a cup of coffee on a stool, has it become a table?
>>>>>> I think you have to be a member of Mensa to answer that one!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International
>>>>>
>>>>> And probably a member of Mensa to ask it. Mensa is a society for
>>>>> people who score very well on IQ tests, but don't have any other
>>>>> achievements to boast about.
>>>>>
>>>>> The archetypical Mensa member was the late Clive Sinclair, who not
>>>>> only scored well on IQ tests but also did quite a few clever things.
>>>>> Sadly he was also brilliant at snatching defeat from the jaws of
>>>>> victory, usually by some feat of mindless penny-pinching.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was based in Cambridge around the time I worked there, and lots of
>>>>> people had Clive Sinclair stories.
>>>>
>>>> The late /Sir/ Clive Sinclair was a hugely successful entrepreneur who
>>>> revolutionised the calculator and home computer market in particular,
>>>> and without whom you would probably not have anything remotely like the
>>>> computers you have today.
>>>>
>>>> He did have plenty of failures - some due to a disconnect between making
>>>> technically good solutions without enough consideration of large
>>>> commercial companies and their power to control markets, and some
>>>> because his ideas were too early and the technology was not ready.
>
> But mostly because he insisted on the cheapest solution, even when it was much too nasty to serve the intended purpose.
>

The point was to make things cheap, so that many people could afford
them. It worked for some of his products, not for others.

>>>> But you do not earn a knighthood for outstanding services to industry if
>>>> you "don't have any other achievements to boast about" or "did quite a
>>>> few clever things". The guy was responsible for a revolution first in
>>>> the pocket calculator industry, then the home computer industry - making
>>>> products that were a small fraction of the size and cost of the
>>>> alternatives, outselling everyone else put together, and bringing
>>>> computing to at least an order of magnitude more people than had ever
>>>> heard it before.
>>>>
>>>> He was eccentric, certainly, but he was a genius whom Britons can
>>>> remember with pride as the UK sinks slowly into oblivion.
>>>
>>> I was in Cambridge in the 80s, and can corroborate what Bill said.
>>>
>>> People there had a /much/ better opinion of Acorn Computers
>>> (which later morphed into ARM).
>>>
>> Acorn designed far better computers, both software and hardware - anyone
>> who has used a BBC Micro and a ZX Spectrum would be in no doubt which
>> was technically superior. But the BBC cost 3 times as much as the
>> spectrum - more, when you included buying a monitor instead of using an
>> old TV. The Spectrum (and its predecessor the ZX 81) were at least an
>> order of magnitude more popular as home computers - the BBC was
>> primarily found in schools.
>
> But they were popular because they were cheap, rather than an anything like good.
>

Which would you rather have? A home computer that worked well and was
within budget, but had an unpleasant keyboard, or a dream about one that
was far better? Most people would choose the one they could afford to
buy. As a kid I learned a /lot/ working on my ZX Spectrum. If I had
had the money, I would have bought a BBC Micro. But I didn't have the
money.

Your attitude here is incredibly arrogant - you are accusing Sinclair of
selling cheap crap to people too miserly to be willing to pay several
times as much for good (in your not so humble opinion) alternatives.

The Spectrum (and the ZX81 before it, and Sinclair calculators before
that) were /good enough/. They were not as technically brilliant as the
BBC Micro - few machines of that time, cheaper or dearer, were as
technically good. But the Spectrum was good enough technically, and
excellent value for money. It opened the market and popularised home
computers, as well as bringing important steps to mass-market
electronics such as the use of a ULA.

>
> Clive's IQ was high, but his judgement sucked. When Chris Curry was working for Clive, he ran for the National Front in Cambridge, subsidised by Clive. That tells you all you need to know about both of them.
>

I have no idea what the people here were like personally. That is not
the issue. /You/ brought up Clive Sinclair as a prime example of a
person who has a high IQ and whose only notable achievement was being in
Mensa. That is complete and absolute shite, and no amount of wild
back-peddling, claims of penny-pinching, comparisons to others, or
personal attacks (however true they might be) will change that.

Isaac Newton was a nasty, evil, vindictive man and spent a great deal of
his life sniffing mercury fumes, trying to fabricate gold, and producing
weird theology writings. Does that mean we should ignore his
accomplishments in maths and physics?