Slashdot Mirror

The problem wasn't simply in finding a durable filament.

The problem was in devising an entire system that would be safe, practical and economic for home use.

It was not realized [as late as] 1879 that the solution of the great problem of subdivision of the electric current would not, however, be found merely in the production of a durable incandescent electric lamp. ... The other principal features necessary to subdivide the electric current successfully were: the burning of an indefinite number of lights on the same circuit; each light to give a useful and economical degree of illumination; and each light to be independent of all the others in regard to its operation and extinguishment. The Invention of the Incandescent Lamp

You need switches that won't electrocute the child who touches an exposed copper bar and not the insulated handle.

Fuses to prevent fire.

In Soviet Russia High-Energy Microwave Chernobyl-Chili in a plastic bowl microwaves you!

Your argumentation is a bit on the vague side here. Let me try and help You out with a quote from Mark Twains great American novel "Tom Sawyer abroad", where Tom explains the self evident truths of this world to his somewhat perplexed companion, Huckleberry Finn:

...

I thought he must be losing his mind. But no, he was in real earnest, and went right on, perfectly ca'm.

"A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."

"Which Holy Land?"

"Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."

"What do we want of it?"

"Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's our duty to take it away from them."

"How did we come to let them git hold of it?"

"We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."

"Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"

"Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"

I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way. I says:

"It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"

"Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn. It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them."

"Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now, if I had a farm and another person --"

Should it for some odd reason(?) happen so that one of you guys still do not get it, the argument is further developed here: http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/m arktwain/TomSawyerAbroad/Chap1.html

Then I remembered that for some time now, some people who think of themselves as "hackers" (in the original sense of the word) have played language nazi every time they've heard the more popular use of the word. "No!" they exclaim. "You mean cracker!"

This ignores two important linguistic principles:

1. Words can have more than one meaning. You're supposed to figure out which one from context.
2. You can't just coin a new word and expect people to use it in place of an existing well-established word. Especially when the coinage is so lame.

You should not have identified as being an employee of DSTA, but then again it is your choice (and no I don't work for the DSTA, but do live down the road from them).

I think you are correct in your assessment of the role of innovation and it is quite clearly and well stated by Alexis De Tocqueville's book "Democracy in America" - which he wrote in the 1830s - in which he states:

"When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the co-operation of the Government, but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less successful than the State might have been in his position; but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the Government could have done. "[1]

[1] http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/ politicalscience/DemocracyinAmericaPart1/chap9.htm l

Or take the example of the Theban Band, who made love with each other and war on their neighbors.

You're right.
If you want to impress friends,learn to recite
Ramanujan's number:
262537412640768743.9999999999992500725971981856888 7935385633733699086270753741 03782106479101186073129511813461860645041930838879 4975386404490572871447719681 48523224320391164782914886422827201311783170650104 5222687801444841770346969463 35570768172388768100092370653951938650636275765788 8558223948114276912100830886 65110728471062346581129818301245913283610006498266 5923651726178830863710786452 19552815427466510961100147250209790463938177871257 5009803657792230643121651131 08738059929824233558494561239956769997843596486409 6003266482443521306491599303 27053075325656861838826548330980284669624287388475 1844436838530734115044469478 84005946446913168212059294605454216375489189006015 035687286293314006363226...
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/m ath/MiscellaneousMathematicalConstants/chap79.html

Nuclear Engineering != Nuclear Weapons

Building nuclear weapons is stupidly simply from a theoretical standpoint. Understanding *why* they work, and developing new engineering concepts isn't so simple.

Basically, it's the traditional "once someone has done it, it's easy" conundrum. Columbus and the Egg is a particularly good example of this situation, even if the story is fiction.

Air Brake George Westinghouse 1868
Air Conditioning Willis Carrier 1911
Aircraft Autopilot Elmer A. Sperry 1910
Barbed Wire Joseph E. Glidden 1873
Fountain Pen Lewis E. Waterman 1884
Frozen Food Clarence Birdseye 1924
Gyrocompass Elmer Sperry 1905
Liquid Fueled Rocket Robert Goddard 1926
Measles Vaccine John Enders and Thomas Peebles 1953
Microwave Oven Percy Spencer 1947
Motion Pictures Thomas A. Edison 1893
Prozac Bryan B. Malloy of Scotland and Klaus K. Schmiegel 1972
Sewing Machine Elias Howe 1846
Spruce Based Chewing Gum John Curtis 1848
Teflon DuPont 1943
Xerography Chester Carlson 1938
Zipper W.L. Judson 1891
Vacuum clearer invented, 1889
Wright brothers make first successful airplane flight, 1903
Roll film invented, 1889
Adding machine invented, 1885
Bell invents telephone, 1876
Color television begins, 1953

You can find many short lists. This one is a little out of the time frame but I'll add it anyways.
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/b iography/Edison/chap50.html

Kepler was infatuated with Greek mysticism. Newton spent most of his time on alchemy and other nonsense. You can be a "real scientist" and still have trouble separating myth from reality.

Where in "VR" does it say "holding your arms out in mid-air"?

There is a reason none of these VR interfaces never go anywhere. The human body is not designed to hold it's arms suspended in mid-air for extende dperiods of time.

Although that phenomenon is real (it is called gorilla arm syndrome), it doesn't have to be an obstacle to glove-based VR interfaces.

Designers simply have to overcome the ingrained idea that the operator must be reaching towards a viewable surface horizontally beside her, instead of vertically below. There is no reason your digi-gloved hands can't still be giving useful inputs even while they are hanging at waist level, or resting on a desk (possibly with the view area on the table surface itself)

If you want a book in which "it seems the line between the fairy world and ours is a bit blurred. Many of the stories involve everyday normal humans coming into their first contact with the little bit of magic all around them. Some believe immediately while others take convincing. Many characters recur through the books and short stories and eventually you may find yourself wrapped up into his little world.", I would highly recommend Sylvie and Bruno . It is quite a Christian novel, which may be off-putting to some, but it is a remarkable piece of writing...

..by Lewis Carroll. In 1893.

See also here. I don't quite know why that guy is offering a prize. It's well understood as coming from the properties of the j-function.

Very briefly: you may have sketched the function y^2=P(x) in your life where P(x) is a cubic. If you allow x and y to be complex numbers you get a 2D surface. That 2D surface is basically a twisted up torus (minus a point at or two corresponding to when x and y go to infinity) and the j function gives a way of specifying exactly what torus. It also plays an important role in string theory. But the full explanation of why you get all these near integers is quite long and involved.