Has The Ship Sailed

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by #4zA - Sto pazziann (U22472)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 12 seconds ago
Tough gig being an inventor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, James Dyson should be publically executed for mass fraud.


.and for being a Brexiteer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We gotta Dyson vacuum cleaner thingy

Is a peace of sheet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Burn it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If its no good you'll just have to suck it up...

comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 22 seconds ago
Because you’re disputing the claims to invention on the basis that it has used innovation. But in many cases those inventions are the result of the process of innovation. I agree that most inventions don’t just occur in a vacuum, but that shouldn’t mean it’s misplaced to make that claim that invention occurred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah. I get you now, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I feel it's more complicated in a historical context. For example, the first electric car was basically an electrified wagon. But wagons already existed and using electricity for propulsion was also known. So was it an invention or an innovation?

I googled invention vs innovation. Here's the result page for easy reference.

https://www.google.com/search?q=innovation+vs+invention&oq=innovation+vs+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i512l3j0i22i30l11.7634j0j9&client=ms-android-transsion&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&bshm=foot/2

Reading through the various articles, it seems the most popular consensus is that an invention entails coming up with a novel concept and demonstrating how it functions in theory. In contrast to innovation, it is more about putting the latest concept into practice.

"To invent something is to discover a new thing. Meanwhile, to innovate means ​“to use a new ​idea or​method”. To innovate is to introduce something new to the market, to manipulate existing inventions and turn them into a product or process that is of use in the real world."

But as I said, I get your point, but I think there's a bit of a grey area there perhaps .

Yeah I agree there’s a grey area. I think it becomes a question of whether you can describe a product as something new. Ultimately it’s impossible to really create something new because it’s always working under certain assumptions that have been gathered by years’ of research. It’s a semantic argument, I think you’re leaning too heavily on that to dismiss invention.

But even if you’re right and it’s more accurate to describe some of these things as innovations, they’re still of importance to note. The lionisation of them, however, and how it relates Empire are different debates that should be discussed - rather than trying to deny the importance of the people that innovated, invented or propagated them.

But even if you’re right and it’s more accurate to describe some of these things as innovations, they’re still of importance to note
-----
You're probably right, but I want to comment on this. It's not that I want to take anything away from anyone. They are of importance to note. Britain is a great country that has more than contributed it's fair share to where the world is now, as has everyone else.

The aim is not to lower but to be accurate and oppose "exceptionalism". Using my cup of tea example, you wouldn't invent a cup of tea if a cup had never been invented or of tea leaves had never been invented. So to lay more recognition and acclaim on the person who invented the cup of tea is disrespectful to they who invented cup and the tea leaves.

The guy who invented the cup, the guy who invented the tea leaves and the guy who put it together to make a cup of tea, none is more valuable or intelligent than the other. None deserves more appreciation than the other.

It is a collective effort between "US". Humanity. There can be no cup of tea without the cup. There can be no cup of tea without tea leaves. They're all equal and impossible to value one over the other. No one should claim to carry more responsibility or credit than the other IMO, so it may look like I am downplaying things, but that's not the aim.

I think it depends what it is as it’s always quite difficult to track who should get recognition. Exceptionalism is inescapable, but it isn’t always necessarily exceptionalism to give recognition to certain individuals.

As I mentioned in the rest of that paragraph, the lionisation is different to denying their importance. And contextualising it leads to better dialogue rather than trying to deny it.

I don't think I've denied it and I feel most of what I've done is contextualisation. It was good conversation. My point is that you cannot ever fairly track who should get recognition, unless you are biased or have some agenda. The notion that so and so invented something like rail transport is somewhat ridiculous because putting it all down to one man at a certain specific time in history is ridiculous.

It is a futile effort, as proven here and as in my cup of tea example. It's like trying to decide which wall in a room is more important than the other. They're all equally important and none can be more important than the other as it wouldn't be a room without any one of its walls.

I also agree that exceptionalism is inescapable, but so is crime, so being inescapable doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed, and if you're gonna give recognition why not give recognition to all, as is factual and deserved across the board, rather than naming one guy as the father or discoverer of this or that, when basic research proves otherwise?

Yeah I get what you are saying. I think obviously 52’s used the wrong wording and bad examples at times.

I think it’s also a matter of perspective because I’m comfortable with certain individuals being given credit, whilst still acknowledging the context whereas others aren’t on either side of the debate.

comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 8 hours, 20 minutes ago
Yeah I get what you are saying. I think obviously 52’s used the wrong wording and bad examples at times.

I think it’s also a matter of perspective because I’m comfortable with certain individuals being given credit, whilst still acknowledging the context whereas others aren’t on either side of the debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough bro.

This is probably the only amicable conversation we’ve ever had. You cuuuunt.

No it isn't. We had some many years ago, but yeah, in recent years this is it.