The investor responded: "Why would we do that? Its not a sphere, its a horse!" To which the physicist responded "Have you ever tried to integrate over a horse?"
I'm a physics undergrad at Guilford College. We are taught LaTeX (and are required to use it to write lab reports) starting week one of the first introductory physics class. In the second class we are introduced to MatLab, where we design a Newton Half Step program that is then integrated into the presentation of the material; this technique enables the learning of new subjects; we learn to program within a scientific context without being required to take an extra class (read: no physics classes are replaced by a CompSci class, and the physics classes we take are enhanced due to the programming exposure). By the fourth semester (max) we take Mathematical Physics, which is primarily taught through MatLab; through that, we get quite a bit of data structures and other prog. elements that are useful, while learning powerful tools that are used throughout the field. Sure, I would agree learning some C++ (I'm also a Math and Computer Science major) would be very useful, and in fact we (physics students at Guilford) are encouraged to do so, but I think that learning basic programming in a physics context enables the learning of physics; after all, as a physics student I have performed an experiment on this process, and the result is within two sigma:-)
Or at least beating Apple to the punch?
When the iPhone first came out, I had the follwing advert in my mind, for Apple's next big thing: an iPhone appears on the screen, with the normal "twang" iPhone song in the background. and then a hand (you know the one) comes on screen, and pinches (or antipinches?) the image of the iPhone apart, enlarging it into a full fledged laptop (tablet?).
I'm wondering, was Microsoft also imagining that Apple would take this route? Are they leaking their images to "beat" Apple, in case Apple announces this new laptop product at their developer's conference (which is less then two weeks away)? The timing seems conspicuous.
Problem with that is that, while e=mc^2, mc^2 does not equal the amount of usable energy released. A *lot* of that energy is lost in the form of heat, sound, the creation of other particles, and many other ways... many of which are very difficult (or currently impossible) to store and/or harness. Additionally, engineering a storage mechanism isn't the only other difficulty: engineering a cost-effective way to mass produce antimatter isn't easy.
The problem with "obvious/not obvious" kinds of thinking is that there are many things that are obvious which turn out to be not true, and there are many true things that are not obvious. Math is the foundation of everything, and computers are what I call "Big Math"; just more math with big (or small) machines to do it for you. The problem is, everyone should have a solid mathematical foundation, just as everyone should have a solid foundation in the language they speak. Computers have now become a major component in the consumer marketplace, and the paradigm should be on what they are to be doing instead of how to do it. Math is simply the foundation of "how to do it."
Aww, Google and eBay got back together again after their little lover's quarrel. I think it's a good thing that this made them realize they are not ready for their previous level of commitment and that they made it clear that it is o.k. for each other to see other corporations too.
Slashdot Mirror
The investor responded: "Why would we do that? Its not a sphere, its a horse!" To which the physicist responded "Have you ever tried to integrate over a horse?"
I'm a physics undergrad at Guilford College. We are taught LaTeX (and are required to use it to write lab reports) starting week one of the first introductory physics class. In the second class we are introduced to MatLab, where we design a Newton Half Step program that is then integrated into the presentation of the material; this technique enables the learning of new subjects; we learn to program within a scientific context without being required to take an extra class (read: no physics classes are replaced by a CompSci class, and the physics classes we take are enhanced due to the programming exposure). By the fourth semester (max) we take Mathematical Physics, which is primarily taught through MatLab; through that, we get quite a bit of data structures and other prog. elements that are useful, while learning powerful tools that are used throughout the field. Sure, I would agree learning some C++ (I'm also a Math and Computer Science major) would be very useful, and in fact we (physics students at Guilford) are encouraged to do so, but I think that learning basic programming in a physics context enables the learning of physics; after all, as a physics student I have performed an experiment on this process, and the result is within two sigma :-)
Or at least beating Apple to the punch? When the iPhone first came out, I had the follwing advert in my mind, for Apple's next big thing: an iPhone appears on the screen, with the normal "twang" iPhone song in the background. and then a hand (you know the one) comes on screen, and pinches (or antipinches?) the image of the iPhone apart, enlarging it into a full fledged laptop (tablet?). I'm wondering, was Microsoft also imagining that Apple would take this route? Are they leaking their images to "beat" Apple, in case Apple announces this new laptop product at their developer's conference (which is less then two weeks away)? The timing seems conspicuous.
Problem with that is that, while e=mc^2, mc^2 does not equal the amount of usable energy released. A *lot* of that energy is lost in the form of heat, sound, the creation of other particles, and many other ways... many of which are very difficult (or currently impossible) to store and/or harness. Additionally, engineering a storage mechanism isn't the only other difficulty: engineering a cost-effective way to mass produce antimatter isn't easy.
The problem with "obvious/not obvious" kinds of thinking is that there are many things that are obvious which turn out to be not true, and there are many true things that are not obvious. Math is the foundation of everything, and computers are what I call "Big Math"; just more math with big (or small) machines to do it for you. The problem is, everyone should have a solid mathematical foundation, just as everyone should have a solid foundation in the language they speak. Computers have now become a major component in the consumer marketplace, and the paradigm should be on what they are to be doing instead of how to do it. Math is simply the foundation of "how to do it."
Aww, Google and eBay got back together again after their little lover's quarrel. I think it's a good thing that this made them realize they are not ready for their previous level of commitment and that they made it clear that it is o.k. for each other to see other corporations too.