Seriously anyone who relies on undelete should be ashamed of themselves.
So many ways to prevent the loss of data, when does delete mean delete ?
Maybe you just don't want to delete anything.
I've seen XFS go through some punishment and delete things it could not recover from nasty hardware faults.
I praised it because if the file was all there, it did not lose its filename and otherwise it was gone.
Right answer. Back it up.
The only time I'm interested in undelete is on FAT32 filesystems which these days means flash memory unintentionally formatted by a device.
I haven't been using ext3 since I discovered Reiserfs and I haven't used Reiserfs since I discovered it can recover files and lose the corresponding filename. Clearly a design mistake.
The most stable platform is one where you switch the power off. All OSs undergo evolution, whether they do it openly or behind closed doors until they release something "error free" (TM)
If you take the concept seriously that being aware of ever present conflicts within a system is inherant to its usability, then its not hard to see why something like Vista is having a hard time.
Looking at say sound development on Linux, I used OSS to start with years ago, made the shift to esd for a while, but it lacked the general app support becasue it was no proxy for OSS. ALSA came in from the side with support for the growing list of sound hardware and was a proxy of OSS, so users and developers gravitated to it. Now it seems Pulseaudio has realized the importance of being a proxy for other methods as a means of survival.
The key, Flash - it now has a pulseaudio supported beta floating around. SO, I would expect all to gravitate toward it.
When this is stable, it will represent the unification of all that is linux sound (bar pro mixing/editing) from past to present and since new things come from what we have now - its done and desktop.
Looking at all other efforts for unified linux sound as failures completely ignores how we discover new functionality, how we progress through being introduced to new methods from others. Without a playground, you've got dos.
Linux is just beginning its gradual ride to the top. its a generational thing I think, to see it become normal means accepting conflict as inherant to growth on a large scale.
When you try to force a unified system that has no conflict but somehow "grew" - the conflicts that are inherant are not discovered until users freak out when they do something or combine something the developers did not intend.
Its a consequence of the commercial model of systems. Perfect stability is a great marketing concept.
Well, its all about pedophiles in this country. Basically, most of us (Australians) would gladly stone one to death at the mere accusation of being sex offender. Its a huge issue, the police are all over it constantly. I have no doubt they push the boundries of surveillance quite often here, now they are just pushing for the right to make their actions official - carries more weight.
I think that here, Australians generally believe freedom to be social normality. Anything considered outside normality is not valued under our principles of freedom. That is why we basically are swayed into more police powers because we all think "I'm normal, I've got nothing to hide"
The difference between being a pedophile or just someone who parodies authority in the extreme, or someone who takes a philosphical stance on information and its interpretations and value of truth is close to nil.
There never really was a feeling of defense of those outside the norm who do no harm to others as a principle of freedom in Australia.
If you understand this principle of fear overriding freedom principles, you too can work for current affairs programs.
If the armed forces were seriously trained in defensive occupation alone, there would be no need to use or even threaten with bombs.
What of course would be best, would be to set aside an area to release bombs from both sides, that way people can get out of the way of the cock fight.
Compression artifacts are a way of life here in China, it means you get to download everything free now (copyright is shunned here, people are prepared to pay for genuine DVDs because the official price is still half or less of what you Americans pay and you have a better chance of getting a version of the movie that wasn't recorded with a handheld camera in the cinema, these are bought on the street for less than a US dollar.)
They have the choice as we all do to change their compression rates, but quality of image is not as important as ease of distribution.
Call that congressman, do it now, for America!
Yes, the US is hogging compression rates! so is the UK! BD ? ha! such as an amazingly high uncompressed stream that its obvious many choose BD over DVD because the market needs suckers, not because the DVD is unwatchable.
I am one of those western educated suckers, who likes AVCHD and high bitrates, so I know what its like. Personally, the difference between DVD and BD is about 10% viewing pleasure, so I have to wait for many suckers to go before me before the price is only 10% different.
The difference between DVD and VCD though, I would rate that at about 50% difference in viewing pleasure.
Many VCDs still sell here in China, showing that the Chinese respond to compression/price very differently to me.
Truth is, as soon as a more efficient codec is discovered in China, it doesn't mean improved quality, it means lower bandwidth requirements.
I'm looking forward to the day when I can fit 20 H.264s on a BD for $1. I may have 1 offical BD title for testing purposes.
I'm in China right now, where compression data rates are hitting all time lows.
Ahh those Roman savages, you obviously know me too well.
It is clear that you haven't a clue what I'm talking about when I draw an analogy with the anthropic principle. I don't care if you understand and dismiss the principle, you've missed my analogy by several light years. Have you given string theory a good go ? being verifiably consistent with reality is of little importance when you can add more complexity to match observations.
One ring to rule them all ? Did you actually read that paragraph at all ? what's your problem ? having a little difficulty with syllogisms ? until you deconstruct it, you have zero credibility to dismiss it, don't make me repeat that.
I'm not going to do your research for you, I tried to show why there the apparent strength of causality as shown by the stability of matter in this universe places constraints any spacetime manifold definition. It doesn't take much to state it and show that its important.
So, anyone wanting to find an alternative to general relativity should keep it in mind.
I have thought about the 2 point problem - I believe its possible that its spacetime that is changing as the gravitational waves pass through, not just space. I think it may have something to with the special relativistic effects of compressing/decompressing a point in spacetime at the speed of light. I suspect the clocks change according to the spatial acceleration - even changes in frequency would not be detected because any measurement of time is also variable with gravitational waves.
If that is correct, gravitional waves are a phenomenon that could only be observed as a kind of large scale lens illusion. Its possible it would avoid detection on a localised scale and also possible that there is no energy exchange of gravity into matter like suggested shearing effects.
I have no proof of this at this stage, but its food for thought, I also think that gravity as a force maybe the hardest concept to let go of when considering the general relativistic realm. Its possible that gravity is just a consequence of the real shape of reality and not a force. We don't know the real shape of reality yet.
When I first read about gravity waves, it made no sense to me that they should be energy bearing. I am aware that there is evidence to show that binary stars lose energy due to these waves - but I am not convinced yet.
The perceivable time difference between emitted pulses slowly decreasing suggests the system is losing energy, but I am not certain yet that its gravity waves causing this energy dissipation. At this stage the evidence for energy bearing is stronger than against.
To be honest, I think that if gravity waves are energy bearing, then we made need to reconsider gravity as a bending of all content in spacetime - the subtle changes in length must not apply to all content, otherwise no instrument would have any chance of detecting them.
Consider 2 points that according to general relativity, have a variable distance between them, when it varies, doesn't the frequency of light between these vary as well ? doesn't the detector of light vary as well ? if all content varies uniformly, how could there be any "detection" at all unless something broke the rule of spacetime bending ? do the nuclear forces feel the need to have their own definition of length that doesn't change ?
You can't just ignore the fact that the definition of force in relation to general relativistic gravity is questionable and ongoing.
Many are able to see the potential of interpreting gravity as the product of observing the universe changing shape. Time could very well be the product of a high degree of causality and stability in a changeable universe and not a dimension at all.
metaphysics is not a joke, if we are serious about combining quantum mechanics with general relativity, we will need to reassess derivations not just find new formulas - why ? because what we know so far of general relativity is that it makes a mockery of our current math with the manifold changing shape in accord with its matter distribution. This problem could well be shown to be intractable.
Our best math so far only simulates classes of objects within relativistic space, so far only spacetime itself holds the real answers.
At last we agree on something. There can be no doubt that causality has its own limits when considering quantum mechanics. Considering the apparent stability of this universe relative to our own existence though, it would be unwise to dismiss general relativity without acknowledging the implications of such stability on any possible spacetime manifold.
quotes and flowery prose ? hippies ? what have you been smoking ? math ?
You want me to bring Godel in ?
I am glad you want to use math, just recognise its shortcomings in the realm of physics. We do need to keep re-thinking the definitions of energy and forces, our current math is not axiomatically sufficient to describe the consequences of combining the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
I just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater - any new math that can help engineers deal with these principles must also encompass the principles, I look forward to it.
The logic I have shown is not flawed, just not often understood.
Please don't bother referring to math again. I have made my stance clear on how much math has to do with this problem.
Mathematics is a powerful creative tool, worth smoking - let me know when you feel like joining the rest of reality.
> The model of gravity as deformations to space-time does not logically > imply that "gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of > observing a universe changing shape."
You pretty much said it there - deformations, changing shape. If gravity actually is the result of the necessity of something like general relativity, which is what I am trying show, then why expand theory in a different direction to say gravity is a force?, seems unnecessary, a bit like postulating another dimension to take care of the inadequacies of our current description.
The logic is there. How could it be possible to sustain a universe with causality without a constraint on the apparent speed of information ? its not possible. Why ? because I am claiming something similar to the anthropic principle, without the humans. I am saying that if you believe in this universe holding a high degree of stability, then it follows that if any point in space could be observed within equal time, it would fail to present causality because there is no order, no chain of events, no apparent reason to any observation. An event could well be tied to any other point in space, you couldn't possibly know which other event was the real cause of this event.
Logic comes before the math and binds it. Qualify logically, Quantify mathematically. If you use math to measure something unstable, you can even quantify how wrong you probably are.
I am concerned that people are becoming dismissive of general relativity when its clear many do not understand its ramifications.
I think many string theorists still think you can quantify time in the same way you quantify space. I think they missed the point - and if they don't know it, the more math they do, the harder it will be for them to change their mind about the reasons.
Investing too much in math alone will lead to more dramatic paradigm shifts.
"gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of observing a universe changing shape, from within the universe of course" is completely invalid.
Nice proof, why didn't I think of that ?
Verbally imperfect without the math ? please go away and work to your hearts content on math, just don't expect it apply to reality simply because your math is correct.
Don't respect the facts ? I have put forward logic to do with any possible universe that contains causality - you can refute it, but it exists at a level before math and I have made it clear that math alone is not necessarily reality.
To do physics, one needs to generate theories that effectively model reality and can be tested. To generate models, one needs to rigorously determine if a model is self consistent before testing it. Then you can do some math.
I can most definitely have a problem with something before the math is applied. To quote Einstein:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
I am trying to point out that there is a good reason for general relativity that is based in philosophy - inside any possible universe that contains matter and strong causality, the manifold must have constraints.
Regardless of what math you use within the manifold, having a limit on the speed of information itself, gives rise to strong causality (A implies B remains stable until C implies NOT(A) is true for example).
If the rate of information had not limit, causality would not be apparent and hence matter would not be discernible from energy.
Do you believe that srong causlity exists in our universe ? answering this question with math will not suffice.
Then there is the problem of trying to detect any localised representation of a phenomena that in theory, warps all measuring devices in the same fashion - general relativity bends spacetime because we as humans have trouble understanding space can be non-cartesian.
We hold firmly that it is at the very least 3 dimensions plus time. General relativity is actually the application of philosophical principles to physics. Its claim is that the manifold of spacetime is governed by a limit to the nature of its self understanding - the application of spatial dimensions as a reference frame leads this principle to limit time itself within the framework - it has to be something like this within this framework in order to maintain causality, or more precisely, to sustain any kind of coherence in a universe that changes shape.
If, in our constructed spatial mapping of our universe, one could easily violate causality, matter may have a problem existing and may only exist as energy.
If you believe in matter and hence a universe that has a strong causality and you believe that the universe does change shape - or to put it another way, the universe is not an unchanging entity, then something akin to general relativity is the logical result.
So, I have a real problem with gravity waves imparting energy at all - these waves are an illusion of spacetime bending, not some force that is exerted. From a philosphical point of view, gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of observing a universe changing shape, from within the universe of course.
Time, in the same sense, is also an illusion. the limit on the rate of causality in space I think is consistent because the question of causality is the same question regardless of spacetime.
Being a metaphysicist, I have real problems with the validity of string theory, so most of what I'm saying is not worth much to physics yet.
and the whole time you are doing this, you may find the occasional second to realize that you haven't actually achieved anything.
If it were me, I would long for the days when I could work hard when I know I need to and be content with the fast and the slow of it all.
I think we know what happens when the profit to be made from a medical patent skyrockets, its too easy for the holder to justify extortion.
At the other end, without profit from medical patents, there would be no innovation.
So, where did we go wrong ?
Time - a patent is way of giving credit where credit is due and thus providing funds for new research and development. The keyword being new. At some point, the information is no longer new and so should be released from an individual to the public domain. Its a question of when.
The patent system needs to have a cap on a per patent profit, a large enough cap to sustain research incentives, but if a patent meets the cap, the patent is then placed into a compulsory license.
The only argument then, is how to regulate the cap.
First time someone has pointed out that as an employer, you may not know exactly what you're looking for. Most posts here seem to imply that if you don't meet the criteria, you must be inadequate. Its possible that the employer is inadequate, or just doesn't know enough about the field - which is why they are hiring.
Most people who like to refer to the word "economics" I've found, usually mean they don't like dealing with people. It actually makes a lot of economic sense to respect people, there differences should dissussed in an atmosphere of respect. If that atmosphere can't be respected by either party, then its safe to walk away.
I believe people who learn this respect will do well and end up working with people who have this respect.
Slashdot Mirror
So many ways to prevent the loss of data, when does delete mean delete ?
Maybe you just don't want to delete anything.
I've seen XFS go through some punishment and delete things it could not recover from nasty hardware faults.
I praised it because if the file was all there, it did not lose its filename and otherwise it was gone.
Right answer. Back it up.
The only time I'm interested in undelete is on FAT32 filesystems which these days means flash memory unintentionally formatted by a device.
I haven't been using ext3 since I discovered Reiserfs and I haven't used Reiserfs since I discovered it can recover files and lose the corresponding filename. Clearly a design mistake.
XFS.
use it.
They make rockets out of paper now ? ;)
You won't even notice how well the door is securely locked down!!
- just don't look at the handle closely and ask your friends not to look at the handle closely too.
The most stable platform is one where you switch the power off. All OSs undergo evolution, whether they do it openly or behind closed doors until they release something "error free" (TM)
If you take the concept seriously that being aware of ever present conflicts within a system is inherant to its usability, then its not hard to see why something like Vista is having a hard time.
Looking at say sound development on Linux, I used OSS to start with years ago, made the shift to esd for a while, but it lacked the general app support becasue it was no proxy for OSS. ALSA came in from the side with support for the growing list of sound hardware and was a proxy of OSS, so users and developers gravitated to it. Now it seems Pulseaudio has realized the importance of being a proxy for other methods as a means of survival.
The key, Flash - it now has a pulseaudio supported beta floating around. SO, I would expect all to gravitate toward it.
When this is stable, it will represent the unification of all that is linux sound (bar pro mixing/editing) from past to present and since new things come from what we have now - its done and desktop.
Looking at all other efforts for unified linux sound as failures completely ignores how we discover new functionality, how we progress through being introduced to new methods from others. Without a playground, you've got dos.
Linux is just beginning its gradual ride to the top. its a generational thing I think, to see it become normal means accepting conflict as inherant to growth on a large scale.
When you try to force a unified system that has no conflict but somehow "grew" - the conflicts that are inherant are not discovered until users freak out when they do something or combine something the developers did not intend.
Its a consequence of the commercial model of systems. Perfect stability is a great marketing concept.
I think that here, Australians generally believe freedom to be social normality. Anything considered outside normality is not valued under our principles of freedom. That is why we basically are swayed into more police powers because we all think "I'm normal, I've got nothing to hide"
The difference between being a pedophile or just someone who parodies authority in the extreme, or someone who takes a philosphical stance on information and its interpretations and value of truth is close to nil.
There never really was a feeling of defense of those outside the norm who do no harm to others as a principle of freedom in Australia.
If you understand this principle of fear overriding freedom principles, you too can work for current affairs programs.
Like all those who voted anonymously prior to the last election!!
When Howard got in for a third term, I thought maybe he'd made it happy hour in all pubs from 10 'til 6 on poll day.
If the armed forces were seriously trained in defensive occupation alone, there would be no need to use or even threaten with bombs.
What of course would be best, would be to set aside an area to release bombs from both sides, that way people can get out of the way of the cock fight.
They have the choice as we all do to change their compression rates, but quality of image is not as important as ease of distribution.
Call that congressman, do it now, for America! Yes, the US is hogging compression rates! so is the UK! BD ? ha! such as an amazingly high uncompressed stream that its obvious many choose BD over DVD because the market needs suckers, not because the DVD is unwatchable. I am one of those western educated suckers, who likes AVCHD and high bitrates, so I know what its like. Personally, the difference between DVD and BD is about 10% viewing pleasure, so I have to wait for many suckers to go before me before the price is only 10% different.
The difference between DVD and VCD though, I would rate that at about 50% difference in viewing pleasure.
Many VCDs still sell here in China, showing that the Chinese respond to compression/price very differently to me.
Truth is, as soon as a more efficient codec is discovered in China, it doesn't mean improved quality, it means lower bandwidth requirements.
I'm looking forward to the day when I can fit 20 H.264s on a BD for $1. I may have 1 offical BD title for testing purposes. I'm in China right now, where compression data rates are hitting all time lows.
Ahh those Roman savages, you obviously know me too well.
It is clear that you haven't a clue what I'm talking about when I draw an analogy with the anthropic principle. I don't care if you understand and dismiss the principle, you've missed my analogy by several light years. Have you given string theory a good go ? being verifiably consistent with reality is of little importance when you can add more complexity to match observations.
One ring to rule them all ?
Did you actually read that paragraph at all ? what's your problem ? having a little difficulty with syllogisms ? until you deconstruct it, you have zero credibility to dismiss it, don't make me repeat that.
I'm not going to do your research for you, I tried to show why there the apparent strength of causality as shown by the stability of matter in this universe places constraints any spacetime manifold definition. It doesn't take much to state it and show that its important.
So, anyone wanting to find an alternative to general relativity should keep it in mind.
I have thought about the 2 point problem - I believe its possible that its spacetime that is changing as the gravitational waves pass through, not just space. I think it may have something to with the special relativistic effects of compressing/decompressing a point in spacetime at the speed of light. I suspect the clocks change according to the spatial acceleration - even changes in frequency would not be detected because any measurement of time is also variable with gravitational waves.
If that is correct, gravitional waves are a phenomenon that could only be observed as a kind of large scale lens illusion. Its possible it would avoid detection on a localised scale and also possible that there is no energy exchange of gravity into matter like suggested shearing effects.
I have no proof of this at this stage, but its food for thought, I also think that gravity as a force maybe the hardest concept to let go of when considering the general relativistic realm. Its possible that gravity is just a consequence of the real shape of reality and not a force. We don't know the real shape of reality yet.
When I first read about gravity waves, it made no sense to me that they should be energy bearing. I am aware that there is evidence to show that binary stars lose energy due to these waves - but I am not convinced yet.
The perceivable time difference between emitted pulses slowly decreasing suggests the system is losing energy, but I am not certain yet that its gravity waves causing this energy dissipation. At this stage the evidence for energy bearing is stronger than against.
To be honest, I think that if gravity waves are energy bearing, then we made need to reconsider gravity as a bending of all content in spacetime - the subtle changes in length must not apply to all content, otherwise no instrument would have any chance of detecting them.
Consider 2 points that according to general relativity, have a variable distance between them, when it varies, doesn't the frequency of light between these vary as well ? doesn't the detector of light vary as well ? if all content varies uniformly, how could there be any "detection" at all unless something broke the rule of spacetime bending ? do the nuclear forces feel the need to have their own definition of length that doesn't change ?
You can't just ignore the fact that the definition of force in relation to general relativistic gravity is questionable and ongoing.
Many are able to see the potential of interpreting gravity as the product of observing the universe changing shape. Time could very well be the product of a high degree of causality and stability in a changeable universe and not a dimension at all.
metaphysics is not a joke, if we are serious about combining quantum mechanics with general relativity, we will need to reassess derivations not just find new formulas - why ? because what we know so far of general relativity is that it makes a mockery of our current math with the manifold changing shape in accord with its matter distribution.
This problem could well be shown to be intractable.
Our best math so far only simulates classes of objects within relativistic space, so far only spacetime itself holds the real answers.
At last we agree on something. There can be no doubt that causality has its own limits when considering quantum mechanics. Considering the apparent stability of this universe relative to our own existence though, it would be unwise to dismiss general relativity without acknowledging the implications of such stability on any possible spacetime manifold.
quotes and flowery prose ? hippies ?
what have you been smoking ? math ?
You want me to bring Godel in ?
I am glad you want to use math, just recognise its shortcomings in the realm of physics. We do need to keep re-thinking the definitions of energy and forces, our current math is not axiomatically sufficient to describe the consequences of combining the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
I just don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater - any new math that can help engineers deal with these principles must also encompass the principles, I look forward to it.
The logic I have shown is not flawed, just not often understood.
Please don't bother referring to math again. I have made my stance clear on how much math has to do with this problem.
Mathematics is a powerful creative tool, worth smoking - let me know when you feel like joining the rest of reality.
> The model of gravity as deformations to space-time does not logically
> imply that "gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of
> observing a universe changing shape."
You pretty much said it there - deformations, changing shape. If gravity actually is the result of the necessity of something like general relativity, which is what I am trying show, then why expand theory in a different direction to say gravity is a force?, seems unnecessary, a bit like postulating another dimension to take care of the inadequacies of our current description.
The logic is there. How could it be possible to sustain a universe with causality without a constraint on the apparent speed of information ? its not possible. Why ? because I am claiming something similar to the anthropic principle, without the humans. I am saying that if you believe in this universe holding a high degree of stability, then it follows that if any point in space could be observed within equal time, it would fail to present causality because there is no order, no chain of events, no apparent reason to any observation. An event could well be tied to any other point in space, you couldn't possibly know which other event was the real cause of this event.
Logic comes before the math and binds it. Qualify logically, Quantify mathematically. If you use math to measure something unstable, you can even quantify how wrong you probably are.
I am concerned that people are becoming dismissive of general relativity when its clear many do not understand its ramifications.
I think many string theorists still think you can quantify time in the same way you quantify space. I think they missed the point - and if they don't know it, the more math they do, the harder it will be for them to change their mind about the reasons.
Investing too much in math alone will lead to more dramatic paradigm shifts.
"gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of observing a universe changing shape, from within the universe of course" is completely invalid.
Nice proof, why didn't I think of that ?
Verbally imperfect without the math ? please go away and work to your hearts content on math, just don't expect it apply to reality simply because your math is correct.
Don't respect the facts ?
I have put forward logic to do with any possible universe that contains causality - you can refute it, but it exists at a level before math and I have made it clear that math alone is not necessarily reality.
To do physics, one needs to generate theories that effectively model reality and can be tested. To generate models, one needs to rigorously determine if a model is self consistent before testing it. Then you can do some math.
I can most definitely have a problem with something before the math is applied. To quote Einstein:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
I am trying to point out that there is a good reason for general relativity that is based in philosophy - inside any possible universe that contains matter and strong causality, the manifold must have constraints.
Regardless of what math you use within the manifold, having a limit on the speed of information itself, gives rise to strong causality (A implies B remains stable until C implies NOT(A) is true for example).
If the rate of information had not limit, causality would not be apparent and hence matter would not be discernible from energy.
Do you believe that srong causlity exists in our universe ? answering this question with math will not suffice.
Then there is the problem of trying to detect any localised representation of a phenomena that in theory, warps all measuring devices in the same fashion - general relativity bends spacetime because we as humans have trouble understanding space can be non-cartesian.
We hold firmly that it is at the very least 3 dimensions plus time. General relativity is actually the application of philosophical principles to physics. Its claim is that the manifold of spacetime is governed by a limit to the nature of its self understanding - the application of spatial dimensions as a reference frame leads this principle to limit time itself within the framework - it has to be something like this within this framework in order to maintain causality, or more precisely, to sustain any kind of coherence in a universe that changes shape.
If, in our constructed spatial mapping of our universe, one could easily violate causality, matter may have a problem existing and may only exist as energy.
If you believe in matter and hence a universe that has a strong causality and you believe that the universe does change shape - or to put it another way, the universe is not an unchanging entity, then something akin to general relativity is the logical result.
So, I have a real problem with gravity waves imparting energy at all - these waves are an illusion of spacetime bending, not some force that is exerted. From a philosphical point of view, gravity is not a force, it is merely a product of observing a universe changing shape, from within the universe of course.
Time, in the same sense, is also an illusion. the limit on the rate of causality in space I think is consistent because the question of causality is the same question regardless of spacetime.
Being a metaphysicist, I have real problems with the validity of string theory, so most of what I'm saying is not worth much to physics yet.
and the whole time you are doing this, you may find the occasional second to realize that you haven't actually achieved anything. If it were me, I would long for the days when I could work hard when I know I need to and be content with the fast and the slow of it all.
Actually, I have one right here if you'd care to take a look...
I think we know what happens when the profit to be made from a medical patent skyrockets, its too easy for the holder to justify extortion.
At the other end, without profit from medical patents, there would be no innovation.
So, where did we go wrong ?
Time - a patent is way of giving credit where credit is due and thus providing funds for new research and development. The keyword being new. At some point, the information is no longer new and so should be released from an individual to the public domain. Its a question of when.
The patent system needs to have a cap on a per patent profit, a large enough cap to sustain research incentives, but if a patent meets the cap, the patent is then placed into a compulsory license.
The only argument then, is how to regulate the cap.
First time someone has pointed out that as an employer, you may not know exactly what you're looking for. Most posts here seem to imply that if you don't meet the criteria, you must be inadequate. Its possible that the employer is inadequate, or just doesn't know enough about the field - which is why they are hiring.
Most people who like to refer to the word "economics" I've found, usually mean they don't like dealing with people. It actually makes a lot of economic sense to respect people, there differences should dissussed in an atmosphere of respect. If that atmosphere can't be respected by either party, then its safe to walk away.
I believe people who learn this respect will do well and end up working with people who have this respect.