Thank you. You managed to describe all the problems I see in current physics scholars, and the reason I do not rely so much on what they assume to be true.
No he don't. And unfortunately you do not understand too. I'll try again: The analogy is that in the book, physicists also shouted that it would be impossible (in the story, creating a quantum thruster) and even formulated a mathematical proof to prove that they were right... To only later discovered that the mathematical proof was wrong by a miscalculation of themselves.
Moral of the story? You can't say "this is so and end point" if you are not sure of seeing all the variables involved. Clarke may have been "just a science fiction writer", but he had more wisdom than many who are here.
I see you managed to infuriate many physicists who think they are the masters of absolute* truth... As the religious, with only inverted signal polarity.
*Good physicists knows that there is no absolute truth when you are not sure if you know all the variables involved.
You failed to understand the analogy I used when quoting the book and the passage of it that I pointed.
But I will help you leaving the message clearer: Mathematicians can be wrong. They are also humans and as humans can make mistakes when trying to fit a new event into a mathematical formula. Especially when involves issues that nobody has yet understands for sure.
In the book The Songs of Distant Earth, they also proved mathematically that the technology involved in the propulsion of the ship Magellan would be impossible... Until they discover that a simple sign in the equation was wrong.
I know, that's why I say it's better send several smaller spacecrafts with smaller loads than trying to send a single large spacecraft with a big load. As I wrote above, the idea would be to do as the Russians do with the Progress spacecraft. The difference is that each of them would have to travel farther and would probably be safer to send two at a time to increase the chances of success (and if both could reach, even better since then so astronauts will have reserves if the next shipment fails).
Note: In fact, the ideal would be to send a large ship with a big load, but I know we do not have adequate technology for this. Yet. Remember that it is still possible to simply build a really big ship in space (just as was done ISS) and then this ship set a course for Mars when it is completed.
The military has already solved this problem reasonably well with MREs. Another possible solution would be to have progress-like spacecrafts to restock, carefully scheduling the launch dates for them to do a job similar to what they already do to the ISS. In short, do not try to send everything at once (would need a very large ship), send gradually and continuously.
As an engineer, the advice I have always received, "Do not do any patent or prior art search". Leave that to the lawyer. Avoid getting tainted. Avoid doing what Samsung been caught doing.
The patent trolls will harass you anyway, no matter how much you try to avoid breaking the "imaginary patents" of them. How will you avoid infringing a patent on "rectangular objects with rounded corners"? You can make a square object, right? Then another troll will try to sue you for infringing his patent on square objects.
The only way to win this "game" is to ignore the troll and and kick him from the 14th floor if he insists. It's just stupid to spend millions of dollars to defend itself against a ridiculous patent.
Obs: Is OK to respect real, valid and non-obvious patents. The problem is the dumb obvious ones, like "i patented the wheel".
Is still elitist - and very, very dumb - to buy a overpriced OS and the overpriced companion hardware to do the same thing that any reasonably good pc can do.
And why elitist? Because almost everyone who buys a Mac or a "IThing" is to show that he has money to throw away and so is rich, and the only social group that throws money away is the supposed "elite".
My suggested aproach to the problem is to kill the patent troll with a headshot (heavy weapons is better) if he tries to sue. The "normal" court way is too flawed (and worst, by design flawed) and rigged to work.
The fundamental problem is to encapsulate the code in a VM when this code could use the native features of the operating system and hardware (such as a good old C application).
Running the code in a VM is OK for a server, but it is a disaster (in terms of resource usage) for a desktop.
I think the same thing. I currently work doing "web systems". And do they work? Work, I managed to make a web application that can use a card printer. But at what price? I spent twice the time that I would spend if I did compiled desktop applications, and lost count of the many horrible hacks I had to do to similar desktop functionality using HTML
Except it's not. Things are as worth as much as people are willing to pay for them. If tomorrow the world wakes up and sees The Beatles as a shitty band and Ford Pinto's as the car to get, you would see the values of Pinto's and Beatles records from the 70's adjust accordingly.
So, yeah if you want to talk about how much money a company is worth, you need to look at how much people are willing to pay for that company. i.e. market cap.
"imaginary measure of "worth" derived from feelings and pixie dust known as market cap"
You need to read more carefully the comments of others. Others (imaginary value versus real value) may be happy to be wrong, but not why they like being deceived that I have to be forced to accept too.
Wrong. You need overengineering when you are creating something new and you are not sure if it will work or if your calculations are correct. If yours calculations are incorrect, it is always better to overestimate (heavy, ugly, but works) than to underestimate and have a fireball on the ground.
Smart phones are replacing your desktop, GPS, wallet, voting machine, library, personal assistant, etc.
It will get to the point wherr governments will supplement phones for the economic all ly disadvantaged, such as they are becoming de rigeur for membership in modern society
I use a netbook for this, is better (At least for my case). So why I would spend more or less $800 in a smartphone? (average price of one in Brazil, in US dollars)
It depends on who uses it. In my case all I would do on a smartphone I do on a desktop or a notebook, with a large advantage. The phone I really only use to make calls and do not need it to check emails and also run Crysis on then.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. You managed to describe all the problems I see in current physics scholars, and the reason I do not rely so much on what they assume to be true.
The problem is exactly the "if", which is treated here as if it were "for sure".
No he don't. And unfortunately you do not understand too. I'll try again: The analogy is that in the book, physicists also shouted that it would be impossible (in the story, creating a quantum thruster) and even formulated a mathematical proof to prove that they were right ... To only later discovered that the mathematical proof was wrong by a miscalculation of themselves.
Moral of the story? You can't say "this is so and end point" if you are not sure of seeing all the variables involved. Clarke may have been "just a science fiction writer", but he had more wisdom than many who are here.
No, is just you that have problems to understand. I will help you, using your own words:
You suggest that because some fictional mathematicians can made a mistake the real ones can have too.
Clear now?
I see you managed to infuriate many physicists who think they are the masters of absolute* truth ... As the religious, with only inverted signal polarity.
*Good physicists knows that there is no absolute truth when you are not sure if you know all the variables involved.
You're too stupid to understand the analogy used.
You failed to understand the analogy I used when quoting the book and the passage of it that I pointed.
But I will help you leaving the message clearer: Mathematicians can be wrong. They are also humans and as humans can make mistakes when trying to fit a new event into a mathematical formula. Especially when involves issues that nobody has yet understands for sure.
In the book The Songs of Distant Earth, they also proved mathematically that the technology involved in the propulsion of the ship Magellan would be impossible... Until they discover that a simple sign in the equation was wrong.
I know, that's why I say it's better send several smaller spacecrafts with smaller loads than trying to send a single large spacecraft with a big load. As I wrote above, the idea would be to do as the Russians do with the Progress spacecraft. The difference is that each of them would have to travel farther and would probably be safer to send two at a time to increase the chances of success (and if both could reach, even better since then so astronauts will have reserves if the next shipment fails).
Note: In fact, the ideal would be to send a large ship with a big load, but I know we do not have adequate technology for this. Yet. Remember that it is still possible to simply build a really big ship in space (just as was done ISS) and then this ship set a course for Mars when it is completed.
The military has already solved this problem reasonably well with MREs. Another possible solution would be to have progress-like spacecrafts to restock, carefully scheduling the launch dates for them to do a job similar to what they already do to the ISS. In short, do not try to send everything at once (would need a very large ship), send gradually and continuously.
As an engineer, the advice I have always received, "Do not do any patent or prior art search". Leave that to the lawyer. Avoid getting tainted. Avoid doing what Samsung been caught doing.
The patent trolls will harass you anyway, no matter how much you try to avoid breaking the "imaginary patents" of them. How will you avoid infringing a patent on "rectangular objects with rounded corners"? You can make a square object, right? Then another troll will try to sue you for infringing his patent on square objects.
The only way to win this "game" is to ignore the troll and and kick him from the 14th floor if he insists. It's just stupid to spend millions of dollars to defend itself against a ridiculous patent.
Obs: Is OK to respect real, valid and non-obvious patents. The problem is the dumb obvious ones, like "i patented the wheel".
Is still elitist - and very, very dumb - to buy a overpriced OS and the overpriced companion hardware to do the same thing that any reasonably good pc can do.
And why elitist? Because almost everyone who buys a Mac or a "IThing" is to show that he has money to throw away and so is rich, and the only social group that throws money away is the supposed "elite".
My suggested aproach to the problem is to kill the patent troll with a headshot (heavy weapons is better) if he tries to sue. The "normal" court way is too flawed (and worst, by design flawed) and rigged to work.
I never have mod points when I need them ... Well said.
The fundamental problem is to encapsulate the code in a VM when this code could use the native features of the operating system and hardware (such as a good old C application).
Running the code in a VM is OK for a server, but it is a disaster (in terms of resource usage) for a desktop.
I think the same thing. I currently work doing "web systems". And do they work? Work, I managed to make a web application that can use a card printer. But at what price? I spent twice the time that I would spend if I did compiled desktop applications, and lost count of the many horrible hacks I had to do to similar desktop functionality using HTML
... on Kleper-47c? 47c maybe is a gas giant, but may have many rocky or ocean moons.
Are you mad or stupid? I can do TONs of things in development with 2GB or less.
Except it's not. Things are as worth as much as people are willing to pay for them. If tomorrow the world wakes up and sees The Beatles as a shitty band and Ford Pinto's as the car to get, you would see the values of Pinto's and Beatles records from the 70's adjust accordingly.
So, yeah if you want to talk about how much money a company is worth, you need to look at how much people are willing to pay for that company. i.e. market cap.
"imaginary measure of "worth" derived from feelings and pixie dust known as market cap"
You need to read more carefully the comments of others. Others (imaginary value versus real value) may be happy to be wrong, but not why they like being deceived that I have to be forced to accept too.
Very well said, sir.
He needs to fly at 1700 miles per second to escape from Chuck Norris.
Wrong. You need overengineering when you are creating something new and you are not sure if it will work or if your calculations are correct. If yours calculations are incorrect, it is always better to overestimate (heavy, ugly, but works) than to underestimate and have a fireball on the ground.
3G is existent only in the big cities here, and very expensive. and i use a bag to the netbook. Not "cooool bro!!", but is usefull for me.
Smart phones are replacing your desktop, GPS, wallet, voting machine, library, personal assistant, etc. It will get to the point wherr governments will supplement phones for the economic all ly disadvantaged, such as they are becoming de rigeur for membership in modern society
I use a netbook for this, is better (At least for my case). So why I would spend more or less $800 in a smartphone? (average price of one in Brazil, in US dollars)
It depends on who uses it. In my case all I would do on a smartphone I do on a desktop or a notebook, with a large advantage. The phone I really only use to make calls and do not need it to check emails and also run Crysis on then.