Corporate Space

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:30 am

I'm not talking shit. I'm saying that people do not realize that the difference between a flying machine, and a practical flying machine.

And the Wright Flyer is the first one that is reliable and reproducible. That's the important bit.

Because otherwise your flying machines will look more like the work of this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal

Who died crashing in his glider because his glider lost lift. I don't think you will find a lot of people who will buy a glider that has a warning that says "Not yet fully tested. Has chance of losing lift suddenly and crashing into the ground."

Again, like most folks have already voiced, splitting hairs over "inventions" is pointless. Go far back enough and one can probably claim Icarus invented the first flying machine.

But the people who should be lauded are the folks who made these inventions practical. And after that, we should really laud folks like Ford who made their widespread adoption possible.

Instead, we have people who want to split hairs over who had the original idea for such a machine. So let me put it bluntly: Ideas are worth jack shit until implemented properly, so figuring out who had the original idea for something is pointless and irrelevant. They're just historical footnotes at most.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:41 am

Zinegata wrote:I'm not talking shit. I'm saying that people do not realize that the difference between a flying machine, and a practical flying machine.

And the Wright Flyer is the first one that is reliable and reproducible. That's the important bit.

You mean the one that, over fifty years after Stringfellow successfully made his, they had to launch from a slingshot? The one that couldn't actually keep itself in the air long enough to cover half the wingspan of a modern Boeing 747? Please, any criteria you use to disqualify some of the previous inventions is also criteria to disqualify them, and then you'd have to go one year forward to a French invention that was more reliable, didn't need a slingshot, and was actually done in front of a scientific panel.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:19 am

Koumei wrote:You mean the one that, over fifty years after Stringfellow successfully made his, they had to launch from a slingshot? The one that couldn't actually keep itself in the air long enough to cover half the wingspan of a modern Boeing 747? Please, any criteria you use to disqualify some of the previous inventions is also criteria to disqualify them, and then you'd have to go one year forward to a French invention that was more reliable, didn't need a slingshot, and was actually done in front of a scientific panel.

No, I mean that your knowledge of Stringfellow is a historical footnote, because his machine didn't actually get mass-produced to the point that air travel has become common place.

Again, read what I actually fucking wrote before whining. I am saying that inventions - including the Wrights - are really just historical footnotes.

The real important bit is that somebody built an airplane factory so that its use actually becomes widespread. The Wrights get credit not just because they invented a plane. They made an airplane factory and were the first to sell airplanes in any quantity to an actual customer.

Note: I said the Wrights are credited for the airplane. I didn't say they actually invented them. But as the thread demonstrates - Graham Bell didn't actually invent the telephone. Marconi didn't actually invent the wireless.

So squabbling over historical footnotes of who actually came up with the idea first is fucking useless. If that were the case Icarus beats out Stringfellow.

The people who we should be lauding are guys like the Wrights, Fords, and Boeings of the world who actually turned an idea into something real and usable by the entire society.

K · Post by K » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:36 am

Zinegata wrote:
The real important bit is that somebody built an airplane factory so that its use actually becomes widespread. The Wrights get credit not just because they invented a plane. They made an airplane factory and were the first to sell airplanes in any quantity to an actual customer.

Note: I said the Wrights are credited for the airplane. I didn't say they actually invented them. But as the thread demonstrates - Graham Bell didn't actually invent the telephone. Marconi didn't actually invent the wireless.

So squabbling over historical footnotes of who actually came up with the idea first is fucking useless. If that were the case Icarus beats out Stringfellow.

The people who we should be lauding are guys like the Wrights, Fords, and Boeings of the world who actually turned an idea into something real and usable by the entire society.

Building a factory simply takes money, and the reason we don't value the factory-makers is because any chump with money and a little experience in factory-making can make a factory. That's not an actual accomplishment.

Bringing a product to market simply takes good PR. Good advertising is a talent, but anyone selling snake-oil off the back of a cart had that. Again, it's not an accomplishment.

This is why leaving innovation to the private sector is a bad plan. Funding the con-men and not the scientists is a great way to get a boner pill, but it won't get you an internet.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 am

K wrote:Funding the con-men and not the scientists is a great way to get a boner pill

Apparently that is what the world wants though. I always tell people "Think long and hard before taking one of those".